The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at www.emeraldinsight.com/1363-951X.

htm

Decision-making styles, stress and gender among investigators

Ilkka Salo
Department of Psychology, Lund University, Lund, Sweden, and

Decision-making styles

97
Received 30 November 2009 Revised 30 August 2010 Accepted 24 September 2010

Carl Martin Allwood

Department of Psychology, University of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden
Abstract
Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the relationship between police investigators decision-making styles, degree of judgmental self-doubt and work conditions, on the one hand, and their wellbeing, stress, burnout tendency and sleep quality, on the other. Design/methodology/approach The study concerns investigative police ofcers (n 203). Decision-making styles were measured by Scott and Bruces General Decision Making Style scale (GDMS), and judgmental self-doubt by Mirels et al.s Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale (JSDS). Wellbeing was measured by the Satisfaction With Life scale (SWL), and stress and burnout tendency by the Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) and a scale for Performance Based Self-Esteem (PBS). Questions on sleep quality and work conditions were also used. Findings High values on the decision-making styles Avoidant (tries to avoid making decisions) and Dependent (dependent on advice from others before important decisions) were associated with higher PBS, higher PSQ and poorer sleep quality. In addition, the Avoidant style was associated with lower SWL. Both the Dependent and the Avoidant styles were associated with higher inuence experienced by others in the investigative work. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that JSDS explained the outcome measures better than the Dependent and the Avoidant decision-making styles. Gender analyses showed that male investigators showed higher values on Rational decision-making style (exhaustive information search and logical evaluation of alternatives) and female investigators higher values on the Dependent decision-making style. Female investigators also evidenced a higher degree of stress and performance-based self-esteem. Research limitations/implications The data were collected in a Swedish context and may not be fully generalizable to other countries. Practical implications These results suggest the need to individualize training programs that seek to ameliorate stress and burnout. Originality/value This paper furthers understanding of the relation between decision-making styles and wellbeing and stress in police investigators. Keywords Policing, Decision making, Self esteem, Stress, Management styles, Sweden Paper type Research paper

Decision making and stressful events are central features of police investigators duty. Investigators often face a lot of the tragedy and misery of life. Such experiences are likely to induce stress that may have aversive effects on the quality of how an investigators work is carried out. These challenges may obviously be handled in different ways depending on the specic cognitive and personality features of the
This research was nanced by a grant from the Swedish Council for Working Life and Social Science Research to the second author.

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management Vol. 34 No. 1, 2011 pp. 97-119 q Emerald Group Publishing Limited 1363-951X DOI 10.1108/13639511111106632

PIJPSM 34,1

98

individual police investigator. In order to better understand how investigators handle decision making and challenging situations a better understanding of differences in how decision-making tasks are carried out, that is differences in decision-making styles, is likely to be helpful. Previous research, reviewed below, has investigated how work stress and different factors related to wellbeing affect police work in negative ways but there is, to our knowledge, no research on the relationships between decision-making styles and stress among criminal investigators. The study of differences in decision-making styles and their relation to stress means taking an individual differences approach. Such an approach is likely to be fruitful for a number of reasons. One reason is that improved understanding of how police investigators differ in their approaches to decision making and how this relate to stress can be relevant for selection and recruitment of ofcers at police academies. Such understanding can also be used by staff managers responsible for the welfare of the staff and by individual investigators to identify changes in the decision-making behavior among colleagues that may serve as indicators of stress and potential burnout. In addition, such understanding may be helpful in individualized training programs for investigators affected by stress and burnout. In this work we studied the relation between investigators decision-making styles, a measure of judgmental self-doubt and different aspects of how the work is organized on the one hand and their relation to different indicators of stress and wellbeing on the other hand. For this purpose we used the General Decision Making Style scale (GDMS, Scott and Bruce, 1995), including the ve styles, Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous, and the Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale by Mirels et al. (2002). Moreover, because previous research is inconsistent with respect to the presence of gender differences in levels of stress in police work, we also analyzed our data with respect to gender differences. Within the police different work tasks are carried out. For example, investigative duty will typically include investigating crimes of different sorts, and patrol duty typically involves patrolling the streets, breaking up ghts on the street, in bars and in homes, and checking or arresting people. For ofcers on patrol duty the stressing events are imposed from the outside in real time, but the stress experienced by investigative personnel may still be very real, for example when meeting children or adult victims of assault or rape. In a study by Holmberg et al. (2004), 372 Swedish police ofcers reported the self-experienced event that was the most psychologically stressful in their whole police career. These events were classied into events experienced on patrol duty and on investigative duty and the results showed no statistically signicant difference in the rated psychological stress degree between the two types of events. The importance of efcient decision making is likely to be a common denominator for both patrol and investigative police. To a large extent, other persons wellbeing depends on whether police employee decisions are correct and efcient. As noted above, there appears to be no research on the relation between decision-making styles and tendency for the burnout syndrome in the police force, nor in other organizations. With respect to stress and the burnout syndrome, earlier research has mostly studied its organizational, personality and experiential aspects (e.g. Eriksson et al., 2003; Maslach and Leiter, 1999). In the present study (negative) work stress is seen as separate from, but as a possible precursor to, the burnout syndrome (Carlson and

Thomas, 2006). In line with previous research, stress is dened as an imbalance between the situations perceived demands and the persons perceived ability to deal with these demands (see, e.g. Carlson and Thomas, 2006; Ortega et al., 2007). Our denition of burnout follows the denition by Maslach and Leiter (1999)2, p. 399) who dene burnout as an overwhelming exhaustion, feelings of cynicism and detachment from the job, and a sense of ineffectiveness and lack of accomplishment. Although recent research (Sanders, 2008) indicates that Big Five personality characteristics may be of little utility in predicting police ofcer performance, much research suggests links between personality and dispositions for developing stress symptoms (Collins and Gibbs, 2003). For example, Collins and Gibbs reported from their own study that items from the Eysenck Personality inventory dealing with tenseness, anxiety and tendency to worry were associated with higher levels of stress in police ofcers. Similarly Ortega et al. (2007) found Neuroticism to be associated with stress and burnout in police ofcers. Such personality tendencies might be associated with specic cognitive styles, for example in decision making. Sleep quality is yet another indicator of stress and burnout. Previous research has shown that decient sleep is clearly associated with burnout symptoms (e.g. Akerstedt et al., 2002; Ekstedt, 2005; Sonnenschein et al., 2007). Akerstedt et al. (2002) found that about 12 percent of a very large representative sample (n 58,115) reported disturbed sleep and that female gender and hectic work were among the signicant predictors. Stress in police work In general, police work is seen as stressful (e.g. Collins and Gibbs, 2003; Morash, Haarr and Kwak, 2006; Ortega et al., 2007) and research has found that the level of stress increased over a ten year period (Collins and Gibbs, 2003). As could be expected, research has shown that time pressure and stress may have negative effects on the quality of police work. For example, Kebble and Milne (1998) reported that 54 percent of the police ofcers answered Rarely (47 percent) or Never (7 percent) to the question: How often (if ever) do you have as much time as you believe is necessary to conduct a good interview? Furthermore, Burke and Mikkelsen (2005) investigated the relationship between burnout, job stress and attitudes towards the use of force by Norwegian police ofcers. They found that higher levels of cynicism (a component of burnout) predicted more favorable attitudes towards the use of force, and that lower levels of professional efcacy (another component of burnout) predicted less favorable attitudes towards the use of social skills to solve problems. However, previously, most commonly police ofcers have been studied in this context (e.g. Burke and Mikkelsen, 2005; Burke et al., 2006; Collins and Gibbs, 2003; Dowler, 2005; Holmberg et al., 2004; McCarty et al., 2007; Morash, Haarr and Kwak, 2006; Morash, Kwak and Haarr, 2006; Ortega et al., 2007). A few studies have looked at other professional categories within the police force, e.g. police managers (Loo, 1994, 2004) or prison caseworkers and correction ofcers (Carlson and Thomas, 2006), or a mixture of categories (e.g. Stearns and Moore, 1993). It seems important to keep note of the specic professional category studied within the police because, as described below, previous research has reported differences in stress and burnout between different categories of workers within the police force (e.g. between prison caseworkers and correction ofcers, Carlson and Thomas, 2006). No research on police stress has, to

Decision-making styles

99

PIJPSM 34,1

100

our knowledge, looked specically at crime investigators. This is done in the present study. In general, previous research has found that work-place problems and organizational issues are very important sources of stress in police ofcers (Collins and Gibbs, 2003; Morash, Haarr and Kwak, 2006). For example, Morash, Haarr and Kwak (2006) found that lack of inuence over ones own work activity was associated with higher stress. The results reported by Collins and Gibbs (2003) showed that organizational issues such as decient communication, too much work and decient control over work load and work issues negatively inuencing home life were associated with higher stress. In addition, other factors contribute to police stress. For example, research has shown that when police ofcers have more contact with suspects, they more often report feeling burnt-out (Dowler, 2005). Gender differences in police stress Previous research on gender differences in stress in police work has not reported consistent results and Collins and Gibbs (2003) called for more research on gender issues in police work. Some studies (Burke et al., 2006; McCarty et al., 2007; Ortega et al., 2007) did not nd any, or just a few, differences between the genders in reported stress. For example, Burke et al. (2006) in a study on 221 police ofcers in Norway found few gender differences. This study showed no differences between the genders in the three components in the Maslach burnout scale: Emotional exhaustion, Cynicism and Personal accomplishment and on a measure of life satisfaction. However, the female ofcers reported more psychosomatic symptoms. Here, it may be noted that Scandinavia has some reputation for attempts to achieve gender equality in working life and that, as noted by the authors, the police culture in Norway may be less macho than in other countries (Burke et al., 2006, p. 521). In addition to workplace-related stress, also token status, social support networks, and community conditions must be considered as a background to the occurrence of stress. Token status, which means the individuals minority status within the organization, has been found to inuence stress (Kanter, 1977, cited in Morash, Kwak and Haarr, 2006). According to Morash, Kwak and Haarr (2006) women in policing are often considered as belonging to a token group. They are likely to experience the work place differently compared to men, and their stress may be predicted by other work place factors. Support networks, such as family and co-worker support for ones work activities are important for preventing the occurrence of stress, and hypothesized to be related to lower stress levels among women. Different community conditions, for example the difference in crime rate and social disorder between urban and rural areas, create different work experiences between members of urban and rural police departments, and contribute differently to levels of experienced stress (Morash, Kwak and Haarr, 2006). Morash, Kwak and Haarr (2006) found in a regression analysis that gender contributed less than 1 percent to the explained differences in experienced stress when workplace problems (34 percent explained variance) and support network, community conditions and token status (3 percent added explained variance) had been entered rst. In contrast, Stearns and Moore (1993) found that female ofcers reported more burnout than male ofcers. Likewise, Collins and Gibbs (2003) reported that female

police ofcers scores on a General Health Questionnaire indicated higher levels of stress than the male police ofcers scores, but that only three of the six items from the Eysenck personality inventory showed gender differences. It is therefore of interest to investigate other sources of gender differences, such as differences in decision-making style and how these relate to stress and burnout tendencies. It is also relevant to note that Morash, Kwak and Haarr (2006) found that the investigated variables explained less of the variance in stress for female police ofcers (0.25) than for the male police ofcers (0.41) across a number of variables describing Workplace problems (e.g. lack of advance, bias of co-workers, harassment, ridicule, etc.), Support network, Community conditions, and Token status, as well as Control variables such as education, class, etc. (Morash, Kwak and Haarr, 2006, p. 553). This study also found that workplace problems explained more of the males than of the females stress. However, in contrast, McCarty et al. (2007) reported a signicantly higher adjusted R-square for the model for the female police ofcers than the corresponding R-square for the male ofcers (0.43 vs. 0.34). General research on decision-making styles In general, decision-making styles should not be seen as stable personality features but rather as more exible in that the demands of the situation (as understood by the individual) also inuence how the decision-making task is handled by the individual (Scott and Bruce, 1995). Although the research on decision-making styles has been relatively sparse, a number of decision-making styles have been identied. Some identied style dimensions are maximizers/satiscers (which is a tendency to look for the best outcome, or just a good outcome, Schwartz et al., 2002), behavioral coping/working around difcult tasks (Epstein and Meier, 1989), and the ve styles, Rational, Intuitive, Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous in the General Decision Making Style scale (GDMS; Scott and Bruce, 1995). In the present research we used the Scott and Bruce scale as our decision style inventory because it is probably the decision style scale that is the most encompassing among the various decision style scales. It also appears to be among the best well-researched scales. Some research has analyzed the relation between the styles in the GDMS scale and other properties of the decision maker (Galotti et al., 2006; Parker et al., 2007). As a background to this research we rst note that Schwartz et al. (2002) reported that tendency to attempt to maximize decision outcomes was associated with less experienced happiness, less optimism and more depression and regret. Parker et al. (2007) analyzed the relations between tendency to maximize decision outcomes and the decision-making styles in the GDMS scale and found positive correlations between Dependent, Avoidant and Spontaneous decision styles and tendency to maximize decision outcomes. The same authors found negative correlations between Avoidant and Spontaneous decision making and behavioral coping and positive correlations between Dependent and Avoidant decision-making styles and a tendency to feel regret. There is evidence that some decision-making styles are more related to physiological stress than others. In Thunholms (2008) study army ofcers produced parts of a divisions operational order, including decisions about how to use the divisions sub-units, a both demanding and realistic exercise. The results showed that the Avoidant decision-making style was positively related to negative stress indicated by increased cortisol secretion measured in saliva.

Decision-making styles

101

PIJPSM 34,1

102

Three hypotheses were tested in the present study: (1) Based on previous research results reported by, e.g. Thunholm (2004), Galotti et al. (2006) and by Parker et al. (2007), we expected that police investigators with marked Avoidant and Dependent decision-making styles would show lower satisfaction with life, higher perceived stress at work (i.e. burnout tendencies) and poorer sleep. (2) Because the Avoidant and the Dependent styles of GDMS have features in common with Judgmental self-doubt (JSDS) we expected that JSDS and the Avoidant and the Dependent styles would be positively correlated and therefore that JSDS would also be positively correlated to the above mentioned indicators of stress and burnout. (3) Referring to earlier research we expected that female investigators would show higher levels of stress than male investigators. Method Participants A total of 203 investigators at the Swedish Police Service participated in this study (68 women, and 135 men, mean age 50.3 years, range 27-65 years). Of these, 187 investigators worked at the police in one county of southern Sweden including both city and rural responsibility. The questions were sent out to 355 investigators, giving a response rate of 53 percent. The remaining 16 investigators participated in a course for experienced interviewers that draw 24 participants from all of Sweden. Since analyzing the data with, and without, the 16 course participants made very little difference for the outcome of the various analyses reported below, the results for the two groups of participants were collapsed. In the corresponding population of 592 investigators in same county in southern Sweden in 2010 the average age was the same 50.3 years (range 25-66) and the gender distribution was 60 percent males and 40 percent women. Materials Overview. A test battery was used which consisted of ve separate scales (on decision making, judgmental self-doubt, performance based self-esteem, satisfaction with life and on perceived stress). In addition, the test battery also included a number of questions with the purpose of investigating three different topics: sleep, organization of work and the quality and efcacy of job handling (henceforth called work conditions), and questions relating to perceived causes of wellbeing. Further rational and information on the development of the researcher developed questions are given below. In addition, information about background variables such as age, sex, occupation, and length of employment was asked for. The following ve scales were included in the test battery: (1) General Decision-Making Style GDMS. This scale was developed by Scott and Bruce (1995) and translated into Swedish by Thunholm (2004). There are 25 items measuring ve dimensions of decision-making style. The dimensions are: Rational (exhaustive information search and logical evaluation of alternatives); Intuitive (attends to details, unsystematic information processing, relies on premonitions and feelings); Dependent (dependent on advice from others before important decisions); Avoidant (tries to avoid to

making decisions); and Spontaneous (quickly takes a stand, wants to reach a decision as quickly as possible). Each item consists of a statement related to decision making in practice and the respondent rates the degree to which the statement corresponds to his/her actual decision behavior on a ve-point rating scale 1 Strongly disagree, 5 Strongly agree). The Cronbachs alphas for each scale in the present study and the corresponding ranges for a sample of previous studies (in parenthesis) are: Rational: 0.60 (0.650.85), Intuitive: 0.68 (0.720.84), Dependent: 0.80 (0.620.86), Avoidant: 0.87 (0.830.94), and Spontaneous: 0.70 (0.680.87) (Loo, 2000; Scott and Bruce, 1995; Spicer and Sadler-Smith, 2005; Thunholm, 2004, 2008). (2) The Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale JSDS, is an individual difference measure of generalized mistrust in ones own judgmental ability and is related to a number of dispositions and self-concepts, such as self-esteem, anxiety, and feelings of dejection (Mirels et al., 2002). For example, people who doubt their own judgments may become less sure when the situation becomes more uncertain. Uncertainty about ones own thinking in judgment situations and uncertainty about others thinking and reactions are important factors in self-doubt. The scale comprises 19 statements, each related to self-doubt about ones own judgments and decisions. The respondent rates his/her degree of agreement with each statement on a six-point scale (anchored in : 23 strongly disagree, 3 strongly agree, i.e. there is no zero-value). For the statistical analyses and for easy comparison with the other results 4 was added to each level of the JSDS scale. This study used a Swedish translation of the original scale. The translation was done by the authors and was back-translated by a native English speaking person. The Cronbachs alpha was 0.90 (0.90). Higher scores on the JSDS indicate a higher degree of generalized mistrust of ones judgment. (3) Performance-Based Self-Esteem PBS. The PBS-scale is a Swedish scale that consists of four items that measure aspects of performance/achievement-based self-esteem. The authors argue that the PBS-scale is a proxy variable to burnout that captures essential parts of those attitudes, efforts and adaptations that are assumed to come up in burnout processes (Hallsten et al., 2002). The respondent rates his/her degree of agreement with each statement on a ve-point scale 1 t correct at all, 5 fully correct). The Cronbachs alpha in the present study was 0.88. Hallsten et al. (2002) report the Cronbachs alpha for scale reliability to be 0.85. In their study the PBS-scale was used to establish the proportions that are in the risk-zone for burnout. Higher scores indicate a higher degree of performance-based self-esteem. Hallsten et al. used a criterion . 3.5 on the scale as a criterion of the participants dispositions to drive themselves too hard. (4) The Satisfaction With Life scale SWL (Diener et al., 1985; Diener et al., 1999). The scale consists of ve statements that measure aspects of life satisfaction. The translation to Swedish was done by the authors and was back-translated by a native English speaking person. The Cronbachs alpha in the present study was 0.90, compared to 0.87 in the Diener et al. (1985) study. The respondent rates his/her degree of agreement to each statement on a seven-point scale

Decision-making styles

103

PIJPSM 34,1

104

1 strongly disagree, 7 strongly agree). Higher scores indicate a higher degree of life satisfaction. (5) The Perceived Stress Questionnaire PSQ, measures perceived stress either during the last month or during the last year or two (Bergdahl and Bergdahl, 2002; Levenstein et al., 1993). The 30 items of PSQ emphasize cognitive perceptions more than emotional states or specic life events. The scale is composed of seven factors: Harassment, Overload, Irritability, Lack of joy, Fatigue, Worries, and Tension (Levenstein et al., 1993). As part of an attempt to reduce the size of the total test battery, in this study we used a reduced Swedish 17-item version that asked for perceived stress during the last month. All items with factor loadings below 0.25 (four items) in a larger Swedish study, the Lack of joy subscale (seven items), and the items tiredness and exhaustion were excluded, as was one item from each the Fatigue and Tension sub-scales. The Cronbachs alpha for the 17 items included in the present study was 0.91. Levenstein et al. (1993) report the Cronbachs alpha for the full test to be . 0.90. For each item, the respondent rated the degree of occurrence during the last month on a four-point rating scale 1 almost never, 2 sometimes; 3 often; and 4 usually: Higher scores on the scale indicate a higher degree of perceived stress. Questions on sleep. The questions on sleep were included in order to get a further indicator of the participants burnout tendency. A composite sleep scale consisting of four items was created out of the ve following items, all answered on ve-step scales: (1) To what extent do you experience that you get a sufcient amount of sleep? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (2) How many hours of sleep do you get on average per night? (open-ended response item). (3) How do you experience the quality of your sleep during a typical night? 1 very bad, 5 very good). (4) How large is the variation between different nights regarding how many hours of sleep you get? 1 very small variation, 5 very large variation). (5) To what extent do you experience that your work situation affects your sleep? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). A correlation analysis showed that item (2) was more or less unrelated to the other items (r , 0.07), and hence, was excluded from the composite. Items (1) and (3) were reversed scored. A reliability analysis of this composite gave a Cronbachs alpha of 0.74. High values on the sleep scale indicate poorer sleep quality. Questions on work conditions. These questions were included in order to analyze the extent to which various specic aspects of the work situation were related to the participants self-esteem, satisfaction with life and perceived stress. The aspects of work included were derived from extensive explorative interviews with approximately 15 investigators and administrative ofcers from each of three Swedish public authorities, the Police authority, National Tax Board and, the Social Insurance Agency about the errands they were handling in their work. In these interviews we followed

selected specic decision errands over time and identied reports of aspects of the decision process that contributed to hinder the completion of the errand. The most important of these aspects were then transformed into six questions, all answered on ve-step scales: (1) To what extent is it possible to plan your work? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (2) To what extent are you negatively inuenced by unclear goal formulations about what you should perform in your work? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (3) How often do you wish that you could have more time to handle your errands? 1 never; 5 always: (4) To what extent do you think that the time available to handle your errands inuences the quality of your errands? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (5) To what extent do other people inuence your work with errands? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (6) To what extent can you usually predict the development of an errand (i.e. the outcome of a specic case) already at the beginning of the handling of the case? 1 to a very small degree, 5 to a very large degree). Questions on wellbeing. The two items on wellbeing asked the participants to speculate about the reasons for their wellbeing the last month. Our reason for including these questions was to get information about the extent to which it was primarily the work situation or the home situation that contributed to the informants wellbeing. The questions were: (1) To what extent do you think that your wellbeing during the last month has been inuenced by your home situation? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). (2) To what extent do you think that your wellbeing during the last month has been inuenced by your work conditions? 1 to a very small extent, 5 to a very large extent). Procedure Contacts were rst established with a key-person at the Swedish Police Service and the nal format and procedures of the study were settled following discussions between the key-person and the researchers. Next, the key-person informed the police investigators about the project. The information about the study was distributed by e-mail and included information about the forthcoming project in brief. The test battery was distributed electronically, by means of a computerized questionnaire-system, to all police investigators in the local area (i.e. the police authority in the county of Scania, in the south of Sweden) together with an invitation to participate in the study. Two reminders were sent out. The resulting data le from the questionnaire-system was handed over to the researchers. The 16 police investigators participating in a course on interviewing answered the same text battery using pen and paper.

Decision-making styles

105

PIJPSM 34,1

106

Results First, the results for the GDMS and the JSDS scales will be presented. Next, the results for the sleep scale and the questions on work conditions and two questions on wellbeing will be reported and then correlations between decision-making styles, judgmental self-doubt and the different indicators of stress and wellbeing. Then the analyses of gender differences are described and nally regression analyses on the relation between the GDMS, the JSDS, the six questions on work conditions and the indicators of stress and wellbeing are reported. When a participant did not answer all questions in a scale his or her data is not included in the results for that scale. This explains the variation in the n-values below. GDMS and JSDS The following means for the General Decision Making Styles scale (GDMS) were obtained: . Rational, M 3:70SD 0:48; n 189: . Intuitive, M 3:22SD 0:58; n 194: . Dependent, M 2:93SD 0:65; n 191: . Avoidant, M 1:84SD 0:62; n 195: . Spontaneous, M 2:69SD 0:56; n 191: The mean for the Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale ( JSDS) was M 2:46 SD 0:79; n 177: These results are shown in Table I, as are the means (and SDs) for the other scales used in this study. The inter-scale correlations in GDMS and with JSDS are shown in Table II. The correlation coefcients that were signicant at the a 0:01 level are presented below. The Intuitive style was positively correlated with three of the other styles: (1) Spontaneous style, r185 0:44; p , 0.001. (2) Avoidant style, r190 0:26; p , 0.001. (3) Dependent style, r188 0:21; p , 0.005. The Rational style was negatively correlated with the Spontaneous style, r181 0:30; p , 0.001. Finally, the Dependent style was positively correlated with the Avoidant style, r187 0:47; p , 0.001. The JSDS showed signicant correlations with two of the decision-making styles. The correlation for the Dependent style with the JSDS scale was r168 0:52; p , 0.001 and the correlation for the Avoidant style with the JSDS scale was r169 0:66; p , 0.001. The sleep scale The mean, M 2:55 SD 0:76; N 202 was signicantly below the scale mid point 3; t201 28:28; p , 0.001, which indicates that the participants sleep, on average, was fairly good. Questions on work conditions and wellbeing Table I shows the means and SDs for the items in the questionnaire on work conditions. When considering the formulation of the questions, the direction of the results in relation to the scale mid-point values indicates somewhat positive work

Scale or item GDMS Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS PBS SWL PSQ Sleep, Composite sleep scale Questions on work conditions To what extent is it possible to plan your work? To what extent are you negatively inuenced by unclear goal formulations about what you should perform in your work? How often do you wish that you should have more time to handle your errands? To what extent do you think that the time available to handle your errands inuences the quality of your errands? To what extent do other people inuence your work with errands? To what extent can you usually predict the development of an errand (i.e. the outcome of a specic case) already at the beginning of the handling of the case Questions on wellbeing To what extent do you think that your wellbeing during the last month has been inuenced by your home situation? To what extent do you think that your wellbeing during the last month has been inuenced by your work conditions?

Mean 3.70 3.22 2.93 1.84 2.69 2.46 2.59 4.92 1.94 2.55 3.33 2.82 3.33 3.42 3.19

SD 0.48 0.58 0.65 0.62 0.56 0.79 1.00 1.13 0.52 0.76 1.00 1.09 0.91 1.04 1.08

n 189 194 191 195 191 177 200 203 191 202 203 203 185 185 184

Decision-making styles

107

3.20 3.10

1.22 1.11

203 202

Table I. Means and SDs for the scales and the individual questions on work conditions, and wellbeing

Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Pearson n Pearson n Pearson n Pearson n Pearson n correlation correlation correlation correlation correlation 2 0.027 186 0.133 184 2 0.110 187 2 0.309 * * 181 2 0.117 165

Intuitive

Dependent

Avoidant

Spontaneous

0.210 * * 188 0.260 * * 190 0.445 * * 185 0.120 170

0.470 * * 187 2 0.068 183 0.520 * * 168

0.089 186 0.661 * * 169

20.031 167

Note: * * Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Table II. Inter-correlations (Pearsons) between the ve subscales of GDMS and JSDS

PIJPSM 34,1

conditions for half of the six questions and somewhat poor work conditions for the other half of the six questions. The extent to which the investigators thought that their wellbeing during the last month depended on their home or work conditions did not differ very much mean 3:2 and 3.1, respectively). Relations between decision-making styles, judgmental self-doubt and factors of stress and wellbeing Table III shows the correlations between the GDMS styles and JSDS and the indicators of stress and wellbeing. The Dependent style was positively correlated with PBS, PSQ, wellbeing affected by work conditions, sleep, and inuence of other people. The Avoidant style was positively correlated to PBS, PSQ, wellbeing affected by work conditions, sleep, unclear goal formulations (the degree to which one is negatively affected by unclear goal formulations) available time affects quality, inuence of other persons, and negatively correlated to SWL. The Spontaneous style was negatively correlated to wellbeing affected by home conditions and possibilities to plan at work, and positively correlated to predictability (the degree of predictability about how the errand will close). The Rational and the Intuitive styles showed no signicant correlations with any of the other measures. JSDS was positively correlated to PBS, PSQ, wellbeing affected by work conditions, sleep, unclear goal formulations, available time and quality, inuence of other persons, and negatively correlated to SWL. Gender differences The results for the gender differences are shown in Table IV. The female police investigators scored lower M 3:57 than the males M 3:77 on the Rational decision-making style, t187 22:73; p , 0.01, Cohens d 0:43: They scored higher than the male police investigators on the Dependent style (3.12 vs. 2.84), t189 22:85; p , 0.01, Cohens d 0:43: Furthermore, there was a marginally signicant difference on the Avoidant style, t193 21:81; p 0:07; Cohens d 0:29: The results also showed that the female police investigators gave signicantly higher responses on the PBS (2.79 vs. 2.48), t198 22:09; p , 0.05, Cohens d 0:31; PSQ (2.05 vs. 1.89), t189 22:02; p , 0.05, Cohensd 0:31: There were no signicant gender differences regarding Judgmental self-doubt ( JSDS) or sleep. In addition, females also gave higher ratings with respect to the degree to which their work was inuenced by other persons (3.47 vs. 3.07), t182 22:06; p , 0.05, Cohens dt187 22:73;0.32. No other gender differences were found for the six questions on work conditions or for the two questions on wellbeing (home, work). Regression analyses In four hierarchical regression analyses Age, Gender, GDMS, JSDS, and the six variables concerning work conditions were used to predict the dependent variables PBS, PSQ, SWL and sleep (see Table V). In the rst step the background variables Age and Gender were entered, in the second step the ve GDMS decision-making styles were entered since they were the main focus of the study. In step three the JSDS data was entered in order to relate the explanatory power of JSDS to the GDMS styles, and in the nal, fourth, step the more volatile six variables concerning effectiveness and quality of work were entered into the analysis. The results for the regression analyses

108

PBS 20.096 20.098 0.224 ** 0.220 * 20.001 0.231 ** 0.118 20.074 0.014 20.084 20.144 * 20.050 20.015 20.011 0.129 0.173 * 20.002 0.186 ** 0.019 0.051 0.021 0.123 0.060 0.120 *

SWL

PSQ

Sleep

Wellbeing Wellbeing Goal More Time and home work Planning formulations time quality 20.114 0.110 0.068 0.164 * 0.036 0.160 *

Inuence by others Predictability 0.077 0.037 0.234 ** 0.176 * 0.083 0.170 * 20.071 0.068 20.084 20.094 0.151 * 20.145

Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS

0.020 0.088 0.379 ** 0.355 ** 0.111 0.521 **

0.074 20.010 20.006 20.091 20.016 0.057 0.090 20.096 20.040 0.276 ** 0.222 ** 0.066 20.222 ** 0.314 ** 0.151 * 0.034 20.023 0.060 0.061 20.223 ** 20.246 ** 0.514 ** 0.233 ** 0.035

Note: *Correlation is signicant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); **Correlation is signicant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed)

Decision-making styles

109

Table III. Correlation coefcients (Pearsons) between the ve subscales of the general decision-making style scale, the judgmental self-doubt scale ( JSDS) and the indicators of stress and wellbeing (the three scales PBS, SWL, PSQ), sleep, two questions relating to wellbeing and six questions relating to work conditions

PIJPSM 34,1
Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS PBS SWL PSQ Sleep

Mean 3.57 3.27 3.12 1.96 2.78 2.59 2.79 5.07 2.05 2.59

Female SD 0.46 0.53 0.67 0.53 0.56 0.83 1.01 1.10 0.53 0.74

n 63 * * 64 ns 63 * * 65 * * * 65 ns 58 ns 68 * 68 ns 62 * 68 ns

Mean 3.77 3.19 2.84 1.79 2.64 2.39 2.48 4.85 1.89 2.53

Male SD 0.48 0.61 0.62 0.65 0.56 0.77 0.98 1.14 0.50 0.77

n 126 130 128 130 126 119 132 135 129 134

Cohens d 0.43 0.14 0.43 0.29 0.25 0.25 0.31 0.20 0.31 0.08

110
Table IV. Female and male mean scores on the ve subscales of GDMS, JSDS, PBS, SWL, PSQ, and the sleep scale

Note: *Signicant t-test at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); * *Signicant t-test at the 0.01 level (two-tailed); * * *Mariginally signicant t-test at the 0.05 level (two-tailed); ns not signicant

showed that overall the Avoidant style of GDMS and the JSDS and to some extent the Dependent and the Rational style were the best predictors. In the analysis with PBS as the dependent variable the Avoidant style contributed signicantly to the model only in step 2. The Dependent style contributed signicantly to the explained variance across steps 2 to 4. JSDS was a signicant predictor of PBS both in step 3 and 4. Signicant R-square changes occurred in step 2 and 3. With PSQ as the dependent variable, Age contributed signicantly to the explained variance in step 1 only. The Avoidant style contributed signicantly to the explained variance in step 2 and the Rational style in step 3 only. In step 3 and 4, JSDS was a signicant predictor of PSQ. Goal formulations and More time needed contributed signicantly to the explained variance in step 4. R-square changes were signicant across the four steps in the analysis. With SWL as the dependent variable, the Avoidant style was a signicant predictor only in step 2 and JSDS only in step 3. A signicant R-square change occurred in step 3 only. With sleep as the dependent variable, only Goal formulations contributed signicantly to the model. There was no signicant change in R-square between the steps in the analysis. Discussion The present study investigated the relations between: (1) decision-making styles as measured by the Scott and Bruces (1995) GDMS scale, generalized mistrust in ones own judgmental ability (the JSDS, Mirels et al., 2002), questions on work conditions, and two questions on wellbeing; and (2) indicators of wellbeing and stress (including Performance Based Self-esteem PBS, Satisfaction With Life SWL, Perceived Stress PSQ, and self-reported sleep quality). The Cronbachs alphas found in this study for the various sub scales of the GDMS scale were in general at the same level as found in previous research on the GDMS, but somewhat lower for the Rational scale. The inter-correlations between the various sub

B PBS Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous Step 3 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Step 4 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Planning Goal formulations More time needed Time and quality Other people Prediction PSQ Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous Step 3 Gender

SE

R2 0.032

DR 2 0.032 0.254 * *

Decision-making styles

20.037 20.019 20.018 0.000 0.202 20.093 0.440 0.546 0.227 20.050 0.004 0.252 20.093 0.279 0.204 0.281 0.480 20.005 0.006 0.139 20.085 0.318 0.160 0.309 0.436 0.109 0.126 20.084 0.083 0.041 20.132

0.189 0.010 0.173 0.009 0.171 0.159 0.142 0.144 0.162 0.164 0.009 0.162 0.151 0.141 0.162 0.154 0.122 0.164 0.009 0.168 0.156 0.142 0.162 0.157 0.123 0.078 0.072 0.104 0.088 0.080 0.096

2 0.018 2 0.171 0.286 2 0.009 2 0.001 0.102 2 0.053 0.283 * * 0.342 * * 0.132 0.364 2 0.024 0.035 0.127 2 0.053 0.179 * 0.128 0.163 0.403 * * 0.413 2 0.003 0.051 0.070 2 0.049 0.204 * 0.100 0.179 0.366 * * 0.110 0.142 2 0.078 0.090 0.043 2 0.106 0.055

111

0.078 * *

0.049

0.055 * 0.153 * * Table V. Summary of hierarchical regression analyses predicting PBS, PSQ, SWL, and sleep, using age and gender, GDMS, JSDS, and the questions on work conditions

20.026 20.013 20.065 20.006 0.174 20.072 0.100 0.292 0.087 20.082

0.104 0.005 0.101 0.005 0.099 0.091 0.082 0.082 0.093 0.094

2 0.023 2 0.226 * 0.208 2 0.057 2 0.096 0.164 2 0.077 0.119 0.343 * * 0.094 0.329 2 0.073

0.121 * * (continued)

PIJPSM 34,1
Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Step 4 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Planning Goal formulations More time needed Time and quality Other people Prediction SWL Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous Step 3 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Step 4 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Table V.

B 20.003 0.195 20.073 0.004 0.057 0.124 0.330 20.024 20.004 0.109 0.009 0.039 0.002 0.071 0.270 20.055 0.090 0.120 20.038 0.039 20.062

SE 0.005 0.091 0.084 0.078 0.091 0.086 0.071 0.089 0.005 0.090 0.083 0.075 0.086 0.083 0.068 0.041 0.038 0.055 0.047 0.043 0.050

b
2 0.050 0.184 * 2 0.078 0.005 0.067 0.135 0.500 * *

R2

DR 2

112

0.445 2 0.021 2 0.065 0.103 0.009 0.047 0.002 0.078 0.408 * * 2 0.103 0.189 * 0.210 * 2 0.078 0.076 2 0.095 0.012 20.265 0.002 20.255 20.002 20.050 0.199 0.100 20.471 20.092 20.234 20.005 20.088 0.198 0.223 20.208 20.134 20.369 20.342 20.005 0.038 0.059 0.153 20.124 0.212 0.011 0.220 0.012 0.217 0.203 0.181 0.183 0.206 0.217 0.012 0.214 0.200 0.186 0.214 0.204 0.162 0.218 0.012 0.223 0.207 0.188 0.214 2 0.115 0.020 0.065 2 0.111 2 0.016 2 0.023 0.101 0.057 2 0.262 * 2 0.047 0.102 2 0.101 2 0.041 2 0.040 0.101 0.128 2 0.116 2 0.069 2 0.276 * 0.165 2 0.148 2 0.039 0.017 0.030 0.088 2 0.069

0.116 * *

0.012 0.053

0.037 *

0.063

(continued)

B Spontaneous JSDS Planning Goal formulations More time needed Time and quality Other people Prediction Sleep Step 1 Gender Age Step 2 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous Step 3 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Step 4 Gender Age Rational Intuitive Dependent Avoidant Spontaneous JSDS Planning Goal formulations More time needed Time and quality Other people Prediction 20.099 20.285 0.039 20.145 20.215 0.134 20.036 0.197

SE 0.208 0.164 0.102 0.096 0.136 0.116 0.106 0.126

b
2 0.051 2 0.213 0.035 2 0.145 2 0.179 0.130 2 0.034 0.142

R2

DR 2

Decision-making styles

113

0.007 0.070 20.007 0.064 20.001 0.074 20.032 0.151 0.151 0.037 0.058 0.000 0.085 20.031 0.114 0.073 0.050 0.110 0.137 20.002 0.014 0.068 0.163 0.014 0.015 0.037 20.109 0.133 0.090 20.050 0.013 20.112 0.145 0.008 0.151 0.008 0.149 0.140 0.124 0.126 0.142 0.152 0.008 0.150 0.140 0.130 0.150 0.142 0.113 0.151 0.008 0.154 0.143 0.130 0.149 0.144 0.113 0.071 0.067 0.095 0.082 0.074 0.087 0.045 2 0.086 0.047 0.041 2 0.014 0.049 2 0.024 0.127 0.124 0.028 0.054 0.037 2 0.004 0.056 2 0.023 0.096 0.060 0.038 0.121 0.137 0.087 2 0.021 0.009 0.051 0.137 0.012 0.011 0.041 2 0.145 0.196 * 0.111 2 0.071 0.018 2 0.119

0.007 0.041

0.007

0.082

Note: *Signicant at p 0.05, * *Signicant at p 0.01

Table V.

PIJPSM 34,1

114

scales in the GDMS showed, as could be expected, a negative correlation between the Rational and the Spontaneous style. The Dependent and Avoidant styles were positively correlated, and both of these showed somewhat lower positive correlations with the Spontaneous style. Furthermore, the Intuitive and the Spontaneous styles were positively correlated. Altogether, these results replicate major ndings from prior research, demonstrating that the scales are not independent. The results also showed that the Dependent and especially the Avoidant decision-making styles were closely associated with high values on the Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale ( JSDS) thus supporting our second hypothesis. This nding shows that the respondents with the mentioned decision-making styles had a higher tendency to doubt their own decision-making ability. The correlations between the other three decision-making styles and JSDS tended to be much lower. It seems reasonable that if a person doubts his or her ability to make decisions it is natural to either avoid making decisions all together or to partially avoid decisions by asking the advice of others. These observations validate the theoretical conceptualizations of the Dependent and the Avoidant decision-making styles as does the result that the correlations associated with the JSDS scale tended to show the same pattern as these two decision-making styles. We next discuss the relationship between the GDMS, JSDS, and the six questions on work conditions. The found correlations might be expected, given the results reported above. For example, investigators scoring high on the Spontaneous decision-making style expressed lesser possibilities to plan their work. Respondents scoring high on the Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale ( JSDS) and the Avoidant styles were to a higher degree negatively inuenced by unclear goal formulations about their work. Such respondents in particular might benet from clearer work directives. High scores on the Avoidant decision-making style and the JSDS were associated with reporting that the time available to handle their errands inuenced the quality of these errands. Higher scores on the Dependent, and to some degree on the Avoidant style, and JSDS all showed a positive relation to that other people inuence the work with errands. It is also of interest to note that the Avoidant and the Dependent style and JSDS were correlated with wellbeing at work but not correlated with wellbeing at home. Finally, the respondents scoring high on the Spontaneous decision-making style expressed to some degree that they could predict the development of an errand already in the beginning of the handling of the case. These correlations suggest consistency between the respondents self-reported decision-making styles and how they experienced decision relevant aspects of their work situation. Looking next at the correlations between the GDMS-styles, JSDS, and the measures of wellbeing, stress, sleep, etc, the results showed that the Rational, the Intuitive and the Spontaneous decision-making styles did not correlate signicantly with any of the measures for performance based self esteem (PBS), satisfaction with life (SWL), perceived stress (PSQ), or sleep. However, as could be expected, the respondents with higher levels on the Dependent and the Avoidant decision-making styles showed correlations that indicated higher levels on performance based self esteem (PBS) higher values on perceived stress (PSQ) and poorer sleep, thus supporting our rst hypothesis. As noted above, the PBS is related to the processes involved in burnout.

Hence, our results clearly indicate the association between the two decision-making styles Avoidant and Dependent, and also JSDS on the one hand and indicators of stress on the other. Moreover, it can be noted that whereas Dependent decision makers did not show any signicant correlation with the satisfaction with life (SWL) scale, the Avoidant decision makers showed a signicant negative correlation with this scale. In addition it is interesting that the investigators with high scores on the Dependent style and to some extent those high on the Avoidant style reported that their wellbeing during the last month had been inuenced by their work conditions whereas this was not the case for their home conditions. In brief, the Dependent and to some extent Avoidant decision-making styles expressed lower degrees of wellbeing and higher tendencies for perceived stress and performance based self-esteem, conditions that might be fore-runners or indicative of burnout. It is also important to note that participants with high values on the Judgmental Self-Doubt Scale ( JSDS) showed even more alarming results on the same measures than did the decision makers with Dependent and Avoidant decision-making style. The hierarchical regression analyzes showed that the explanatory power of JSDS outperformed the effect of the Avoidant and the Rational styles when they all were entered into the models for the three outcome measures PBS, PSQ and SWL. However, with respect to PBS, JSDS together with the Dependent style showed the strongest effect. In this context it is relevant to keep in mind the strong correlations between JSDS and the Avoidant and the Dependent styles. A look at the items in JSDS shows that some of the items to a high extent resemble the items in the scales for the Avoidant and the Dependent styles. The other items in the JSDS scale measure other aspects of judgmental self-doubt. A speculation in line with these observations is that general judgmental self-doubt may cause Avoidant and Dependent decision-making styles. This speculation should be evaluated in future research. Furthermore, the regression analyzes showed that the GDMS and JSDS had low explanatory power for the police investigators sleep quality. This last nding adds to previous research results in that the police investigators sleep quality, although in general in other professions importantly associated with stress, does not seem to be affected by GDMS or JSDS. Finally, the regression analyzes did not support the predictive power of age and gender as such for the outcome measures. With respect to gender our results showed differences that were in line with prior ndings that female police investigators to a higher degree than male investigators express poorer wellbeing (e.g. Collins and Gibbs, 2003). In our study this fact was revealed by higher scores for female investigators on the PBS and PSQ measures, thus lending support to our third hypothesis. Our results for the decision-making styles showed that females scored lower on the Rational and higher on the Dependent style. As noted above, the regression analyzes showed that gender did not carry much explanatory power in the competition with the other independent variables. Instead, the relation between gender and stress may have been expressed through the Dependent and to some extent the Avoidant decision-making style. The pattern with low Rational style and high Dependent and Avoidant styles might describe an approach to decision making that is not viable in such a male dominated organization as the police.

Decision-making styles

115

PIJPSM 34,1

116

In this context it is of interest that the police data reported in this study was part of a larger study involving three organizations also including administrative ofcers at two other Swedish public authorities: The National Tax Board and the Social Insurance Agency, and that the gender differences found in the police organization were not found in any of the two other organizations. We can only speculate about the causes of the gender differences in our sample, but some hypotheses are of interest to consider. For example, as reviewed in the introduction, organizational issues appear important for explaining police stress and organizational culture may play a central role in explaining gender differences in stress because the police organization is traditionally a male dominated organization adapted to male conditions of life. This may impose additional burden on female investigators whose life situations (maybe as mothers and wives trying to cope with work-time and child-minding) is likely to differ from that of males. Thus, the work styles of police organizations might be better t for males than for females (e.g. Collins and Gibbs, 2003; Dowler, 2005). In addition, other factors such as differences in work tasks, including females being assigned different types of investigative errands than their male colleagues might also contribute. A complication is that some differences in work tasks might have the effect to increase male ofcers stress. For example, Dowler (2005) reported a signicant correlation between being a male ofcer and having more contact with suspects (which in turn was associated with higher self-reported burnout). Another component is that negative attitudes, behavior and jargon toward women may prevail to a higher degree in a male dominated organization. However, here it may be noted that the police culture in Sweden, as well as in Norway (Burke et al., 2006), may be less macho than in many other countries. Further research is clearly needed on these issues. Some possible limitations of this study are that because all the participating police investigators volunteered to participate (this, in accordance with the Swedish code of research ethics) threats of validity regarding selection cannot be fully dismissed. Another limitation in this study, as in many studies of this kind, was that the data consisted of self-reports. In support of the validity of the GDMS scale the results for the questions relating to work conditions seems to support the results for the GDMS as such. Moreover, at least some previous research has supported the concept validity of the GDMS with respect to actual decision making (e.g. Thunholm, 2008), although there is also research that cast some doubt on the validity of some subscales of GDMS (Galotti et al., 2006). In conclusion, this study investigated the relation between decision-making styles and various indicators of psycho-social health for police investigators. Dependent and Avoidant decision-making styles were to a higher degree than the other decision-making styles in the GDMS scale found to be associated with indicators of stress and burnout. This nding adds to earlier research on decision-making styles and is in line with earlier research showing that these styles are associated with more problematic or negative features of decision making such as tendency to feel regret, less behavioral coping, and a greater tendency to maximize decision outcomes. Furthermore, female police investigators expressed these two styles and some indicators of stress and lesser wellbeing to a higher degree compared with male investigators. On the basis of these results we suggest the need to individualize

training programs that seek to ameliorate stress and burnout. Our results support the notion that such individualization of training programs should pay attention to the prole of the individuals decision-making styles. In future research we suggest that it is important to look beyond the overall group level of analysis and instead pay attention to subgroups, for example of decision-making styles that may be extra vulnerable to stress.

Decision-making styles

117
References Akerstedt, T., Fredlund, P., Gillberg, M. and Jansson, B. (2002), Work load and work hours in relation to disturbed sleep and fatigue in a large representative sample, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 53 No. 1, pp. 585-8. Bergdahl, J. and Bergdahl, M. (2002), Perceived stress in adults: prevalence and association of depression, anxiety and medication in Swedish population, Stress and Health, Vol. 18 No. 5, pp. 235-41. Burke, R.J. and Mikkelsen, A. (2005), Burnout, job stress and attitudes towards the use of force by Norwegian police seconds, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 28 No. 2, pp. 269-78. Burke, R.J., Richardsen, A.M. and Martinussen, M. (2006), Gender differences in policing: reasons for optimism?, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 513-23. Carlson, J.R. and Thomas, G. (2006), Burnout among prison caseworkers and correction ofcers, Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, Vol. 43 No. 3, pp. 19-34. Collins, P.A. and Gibbs, A.C.C. (2003), Stress in police ofcers: a study of the origins, prevalence and severity of stress-related symptoms within a county police force, Occupational Medicine, Vol. 53 No. 4, pp. 256-64. Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J. and Grifn, S. (1985), The Satisfaction with Life Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment, Vol. 49 No. 1, pp. 71-5. Diener, E., Suh, M., Lucas, E. and Smith, H. (1999), Subjective wellbeing: three decades of progress, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 125 No. 2, pp. 276-302. Dowler, K. (2005), Job satisfaction, burnout, and perception of unfair treatment: the relationship between race and police work, Police Quarterly, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 476-89. Ekstedt, M. (2005), Burnout and sleep, unpublished PhD thesis, Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Psychosocial Factors and Health, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm. Epstein, S. and Meier, P. (1989), Constructive thinking: a broad coping variable with specic components, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 57 No. 2, pp. 332-50. Eriksson, U.B., Starrin, B. and Janson, S. (2003), Utbrand och emotionellt utmarglad (Burned out and emotionally emaciated), Studentlitteratur, Lund. Galotti, K.M., Ciner, E., Altenbaumer, H.E., Geerts, H.J., Rupp, A. and Woulfe, J. (2006), Decision-making style in a real-life decision: choosing a college major, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 41 No. 4, pp. 629-39. Hallsten, L., Bellaagh, K. and Gustafsson, K. (2002), Utbranning i Sverige en populationsstudie (Burnout in Sweden a population study), Arbete och Halsa, Stockholm. . and Karlsson, I. (2004), Stressful event exposure is related to Holmberg, U., Christianson, S.-A police ofcers attitudes to interviewing crime victims and suspects, paper in Ulf Holmberg PhD thesis, Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, Stockholm.

PIJPSM 34,1

118

Kebbell, M.R. and Milne, R. (1998), Police ofcers perception of eyewitness performance in forensic investigations, Journal of Social Psychology, Vol. 138 No. 3, pp. 323-30. Levenstein, S., Prantera, C., Varvo, V., Scribano, M.L., Berto, E., Luzi, C. and Andreoli, A. (1993), Development of the Perceived Stress Questionnaire: a new tool for psychosomatic research, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 37 No. 1, pp. 19-32. Loo, R. (1994), Burnout among Canadian police managers, The International Journal of Organizational Analysis, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 406-17. Loo, R. (2000), A psychometric evaluation of the General Decision-Making Style Inventory, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 29 No. 5, pp. 895-905. Loo, R. (2004), A typology of burnout types among police managers, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 156-65. McCarty, W.P., Zhao, J.S. and Garland, B.E. (2007), Occupational stress and burnout between male and female police ofcers: are there any gender differences?, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 30 No. 4, pp. 672-91. Maslach, C. and Leiter, M.P. (1999), Sanningen om utbrandhet hur jobbet fororsakar personlig stress och vad man kan gora at det (The truth about burnout: how organizations cause personal stress and what to do about it), Natur och Kultur, Stockholm. Mirels, H.L., Greblo, P. and Dean, J.B. (2002), Judgmental self-doubt: beliefs about ones judgmental prowess, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 33 No. 5, pp. 741-58. Morash, M., Haarr, R. and Kwak, D-H. (2006), Multilevel inuence on police stress, Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 22 No. 1, pp. 26-43. Morash, M., Kwak, D-H. and Haarr, R. (2006), Gender differences in the predictors of police stress, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 29 No. 3, pp. 541-63. Ortega, A., Brenner, S.-O. and Leather, P. (2007), Occupational stress, coping and personality in the police: an SEM study, International Journal of Police Science & Management, Vol. 9 No. 1, pp. 36-50. Parker, A.M., Bruine de Bruin, W. and Fischhoff, B. (2007), Maximizers versus satiscers: decision-making styles, competence, and outcomes, Judgment and Decision Making, Vol. 2 No. 6, pp. 342-50. Sanders, B.A. (2008), Using personality traits to predict police ofcer performance, Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, Vol. 31 No. 1, pp. 129-47. Schwartz, B., Ward, A., Monterosso, J., Lyubomirsky, S., White, K. and Lehman, D. (2002), Maximizing versus satiscing: happiness is a matter of choice, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83 No. 5, pp. 1178-97. Scott, S.G. and Bruce, R.A. (1995), Decision-making style: the development and assessment of a new measure, Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol. 55 No. 5, pp. 818-31. Sonnenschein, M., Sorbi, M.J., van Doornen, L.J.P., Schaufeli, W.B. and Maas, C.J.M. (2007), Evidence that impaired sleep recovery may complicate burnout improvement independently of depressive mood, Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Vol. 62 No. 4, pp. 487-94. Spicer, D.P. and Sadler-Smith, E. (2005), An examination of the general decision-making style questionnaire in two UK samples, Journal of Managerial Psychology, Vol. 20 No. 2, pp. 137-49. Stearns, G.M. and Moore, R.J. (1993), The physical and psychological correlates of job burnout in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canadian Journal of Criminology, April, pp. 127-48.

Thunholm, P. (2004), Decision-making style: habit, style, or both?, Personality and Individual Differences, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 931-44. Thunholm, P. (2008), Decision-making styles and physiological correlates of negative stress: is there a relation?, Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, Vol. 49 No. 3, pp. 213-9. Further reading Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B. and Leiter, M.P. (2001), Job burnout, Annual Review of Psychology, Vol. 52, pp. 397-422. Parker, A. and Fischhoff, B. (2005), Decision-making competence: external validation through an individual-differences approach, Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, Vol. 18 No. 1, pp. 1-27. Corresponding author Ilkka Salo can be contacted at: ilkka.salo@psychology.lu.se

Decision-making styles

119

To purchase reprints of this article please e-mail: reprints@emeraldinsight.com Or visit our web site for further details: www.emeraldinsight.com/reprints