What did the authors find in the second stage of the analysis when linking attitudes across these three groups (i.e., pro, mid, and con) to police...

In the second stage of the analysis, the authors looked at whether there was empirical evidence to back up the contrast in attitudes among the three groups of police officers (pro, meaning those officers who were favorable toward traditional police culture), mid (meaning those officers who were in the middle), and con (meaning those officers who were negative toward traditional police culture). After conducting an ANOVA analysis, the authors found that the means of Cluster...

In the second stage of the analysis, the authors looked at whether there was empirical evidence to back up the contrast in attitudes among the three groups of police officers (pro, meaning those officers who were favorable toward traditional police culture), mid (meaning those officers who were in the middle), and con (meaning those officers who were negative toward traditional police culture). After conducting an ANOVA analysis, the authors found that the means of Cluster 1 of the con group differed significantly with the clusters of the pro-group for 7 out of the 10 attitudinal dimensions when compared to Cluster 3, 7 out of the 10 dimensions when compared to Cluster 5, and 5 out of the 10 dimensions when compared to Cluster 7. Cluster 6 of the con group differed from the three pro-groups in eight out of ten dimensions. The authors found that clusters from the mid-group shared attitudes with both the con and pro-groups. You can find the results on page 1017 of the research study.

The authors found that the officers in the pro-culture group most closely agreed with elements of traditional police culture, including distrust of citizens, aggressive policing techniques, and selective law enforcement, while the con group contained two clusters that held the opposite views (trust of citizens, less aggressive techniques, and protection of due process rights). The mid group endorsed views that were in the middle. You might consider the meaning of the evidence the authors found—that there are significant differences in the attitudes of these three groups of officers.