Demeanor Vs Nonstudent Analysis

above because students were more likely to be involved with municipal officers anywhere else than nonstudents. Bryan had interacted with the officers more than 25 times, and Kevin was only involved once. Clinton and Matt average was between 3-4 times interacting with an officer from anywhere else.

Demeanor

Demeanor may indicate how an individual views legitimacy of police. When participants may have a positive view on police, they are more likely to perceive police as legitimate. Many factors in demeanor involved eye roll, rude or sarcastic, argue, curse, threaten, lie, pull away, attack, attempted to flee, refused to answer questions, refused to comply with an officer’s orders, spit.

Students were more likely to show misdemeanor than nonstudents.

Although nonstudents had more interaction with officers, the research proved that nonstudents’ were less likely to show disrespect to authority. For instance, Kevin showed the most disrespect to the officers. Kevin rolled his eyes at an officer once. Although Kevin rolled his eyes and cursed once, he was also rude or sarcastic to an officer twice, as well as argued and lied to an officer about speeding, fighting, and didn’t have his seatbelt on while driving. Kevin’s major demeanor was he attacked an officer. Although Bryan was involved with the police multiple times, his views on police were positive. Kevin was second behind Bryan for showing disrespect. Kevin argued, lied to an officer, and fled from an officer once. Although Bryan and Kevin showed disrespect multiple times, Clayton fled from an officer about 3-4 times. Matt was the only that did not disrespect the officers. Although the nonstudents interacted with the police more, their demeanors were less while the students proved opposite

The limitations of the study dealt with issues of reliability, validity, sample size, and cross sectional data. Issues of reliability reflected consistency throughout the interviews. The research study questionnaire was a semi-structured interview because all of the participants were asked the same questions. Coding can affect reliability because our codes can be different from someone else that was analyzing data may not be consistent throughout. If it is reliable, does not mean it is valid. Issues of validity reflected the participants might have not understood the questions. The participants may have lied, distorted the truth, and/ or omitted particular information without bringing it to attention. Validity is the measurement of truthfulness, in which it can affect the truth. With validity, confidentiality guaranteed anonymity. In the research study, there was no personal information which made the participants feel comfortable. Sample size was quite small in which it did not affect the representative of any population. With generalizability of the findings is unknown because…….Cross-sectional data only interviews the participants once which cannot use cause and effect. In order to survey the participants again, there would have to a longitudinal study instead.