Research Article

Life of Cops at Work Areas and their Social Relationships with the Society

Parle Kalyan Chakravarthy

  • Page No:  558 - 566
  • Published online: 28 Dec 2020
  • DOI : HTTPS://DOI.ORG/10.23910/1.2020.2145

  • Abstract
  •  pkchakravarty@cutm.ac.in

Stress is a symptom of imbalance in health in daily life. The more stress, the individual health life becomes more painful. It is a psychological disorder for every individual who is in pressure, anxiety, hyper tension and so on. From the Two-corner side of stress, sometimes the Eu-stress brings positive nature in individual life and sometimes the distress makes people conscious. Stressors always suffer with psychological, Physical health problems when they are in duty which also reflects in the work-life balance with family members. Sometimes they face burnout situations which lead to suicidal thoughts and also burnout occurs more frequently among professionals who work with other persons, especially as service providers while they face with them by some situations. This paper focussed on the two district Police Constables to find the stress levels at work. The districts are in Odisha state  i.e. Gajapathi district, border to Andhra Pradesh and Nuapada District, border to Chhattisgarh state to find the outcomes associated with Social and individual life. Data has been analysed by Independent T-test, Pearson Correlation test and also Factor analysis has been taken to find the gender wise with social domain variables and descriptive statistics has been taken to find the general values. Findings and suggestions has been given based on the results and along with the strategies to make them free with situational stress life. 

Keywords :   Stress, police constables, social domain variables

  • Introduction

    Stress is a fact of life, wherever you are and whatever you are doing. Ermasova (2020) have contributed to the study of police officers’ stress and psychological/physical health; others have investigated police officers’ burnout (e.g., Aguayo et al., 2017; Adams and Mastracci, 2019). You cannot avoid stress, but you can learn to manage it so it doesn’t manage you. Changes in our lives-such as going to college, getting married, changing jobs, or illness-are frequent sources of stress. Numerous studies have tried to map police officers’ stress and its sources, Luceno et al. (2016), and Violanti et al. (2019), all of whom continue to identify police officers’ stress sources and its negative impact on police officers’ health and job performance. Keep in mind that changes that cause stress can also benefit you. Moving away from home to attend college, for example, creates personal-development opportunities-new challenges, friends, and living arrangements. Later, as a result of continuous research on burnout (Maslach et al., 2001; Maslach and Leiter, 2017) stated that burnout occurs more frequently among professionals who work with other persons, especially as service providers where, over the years, they must respond to the client’s demands in a society increasingly based on service exchanges, which elicits job stress. Since some studies used global measures of stress or stress symptoms, it was decided to also use the short questionnaire Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), which has a recent Portuguese version (Pereira et al., 2019). In later developments, McCreary (2017) established norms and cut-off values, with values below 2.0 indicating low stress, between 2.1 and 3.4 moderate stress, and above 3.5 high stresses. That is why it’s important to know you and carefully consider the causes of stress. Learning to do this takes time, and although you cannot avoid stress, the good news is that you can minimize the harmful effects of stress, such as depression or hypertension. The key is to develop an awareness of how you interpret, and react to, circumstances. The concept of stress was first introduced in the life sciences by Hans (1956). Kop et al. (2001) found that organizational factors are the most salient stressors in police organizations. According to Schaufeli and Enzmann (1998) organizational stressors are divided into two groups: job demands and lack of resources. According to Lazarus and Folkman (1984) occupational stress takes place when job demands exceed the person‘s adaptive resources. Therefore stress refers to the temporary adaptation process that is accompanied by mental and physical symptoms, and is caused by a disturbance in the equilibrium between job demands and the ability of the worker to respond to the demands. Culture has been defined as learned and shared norms of behaviour (Austin and Jackson, 1977). Occupational cultures emerge at different workplaces for different reasons and take distinct forms. Both researchers and police themselves have suggested the workplace culture within police is conducive to a high level of alcohol consumption (Dietrich and Smith, 1986).Singh and Agarwal (2011),keeping in view the growing menace of occupational stress among the security force personnel, the paper discuss about the differential effect of occupational stress among subordinates vis-avis officers of the security forces engaged in the internal security duties. The most symptoms of stress are Headaches, Fatigue, Gastrointestinal problems, Hypertension, Heart problems, Inability to focus/lack of concentration, sleep disturbances, whether it’s sleeping too much or an inability to sleep, Sweating palms/shaking hands, Anxiety and  sexual problems.


  • Materials and Methods

    A well-structured questionnaire has been designed to gather the data from 422 police constables from Gajapathi District (longitude and latitude coordinates 19.1912° N, 84.1857° E and Nuapada District (Longitude and Latitude coordinates 20.5071° N, 82.6051° E) in Odisha State. The universal sample is 1010 Police Constables including Armed Special Force, 3rd battalion Forces and other reserve forces.

    n0=(Z2pq/e2)

    The use of the level of maximum variability (P=0.5) in the calculation of the sample size for the proportion generally will produce a more conservative sample size (a larger one) than will be calculated by the sample size of the mean. Here n0 is Cochran’s sample size recommendation, N is the population size, and n is the new, adjusted sample size. If there were just 1010 police constables in the target population, we would calculate 385/(1+(384/1010))=278.945=279. So for this smaller population, all we need are 279 Constables in our sample; a substantially smaller sample size. Data has analysed with SPSS 21 software. Independent t-test, Pearson Correlation Coefficient analysis were used to study the data with p<0.05 considered as statistical significant. Data has been collected through a Structured Questionnaire. Samples have been chosen randomly to collect the data at different places like police quarters, offices, roll call ground, and on-duty sites. The researcher personally collected the data by visiting the above such places with the help of the officers on-duty. Before that permission has been granted by the Superintendent of Police, Gajapathi and Nuapada districts to collect the data from police constables.

    The researcher has used simple random sampling technique for the study. The Universe and sample size of the study is Armed Police Force 235 (and sample is 71 (30%)) in Gajapathi district and 185 (and sample is 126 (30%)), Odisha Armed Protection Force 180 (and sample is 54 (30%)) in Gajapathi district and no such force in Nuapada district, Other Reserve Force 225 (and a sample is 68 (30%)) in Gajapathi District and 210 (and sample is 63 (30%))  in Nuapada District, 3rd Battalion SS 370 (and sample is 111 (30%)) in Gajapathi District and no such  unit in Nuapada District. Out of 422 respondents, a total number of 344 male respondents and 78 female respondents have been considered for the study. The total number of male respondents are 848 and the total number of female respondents are 162.


  • Results and Discussion

    3.1.  Social domain variables

    Near about forty percent respondents are only saying that (Table 1), it explores out that the total majority of 143 (33.9%) (i.e. Gajapathi=35.3% and Nuapada=30.3%) respondents are sometimes agreed for outside relationships, 111 (26.3%) (i.e. Gajapathi=22.1% and Nuapada=37.0%) respondents are seldom agreed, 78 (18.5%) (i.e. Gajapathi=18.5% and Nuapada=18.5%) respondents are never agreed, 47 (11.1%) (i.e. Gajapathi=13.5% and Nuapada=5.0%) respondents are always agreed and 43 (10.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=10.6% and Nuapada=9.2%) respondents are often agreed for late hours. The respondents are sometimes only suffering with outside relationships because of the long working hours at duty. They don’t have that much of time to spend on activities because of no free time available and also the job related stressors have more impact at their work place. The researcher agreed that oftenly the outside relations are suffering because of long work based on the study.


    Near about thirty percent of respondents is always having loss of interest in social activities where as other are showing interest to spend their free time in the activities (Table 2).


    It examines that the total majority of 135 (32%) i.e. (Gajapathi 33% and Nuapada 29.4%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 109 (25.8%) (i.e Gajapathi 24.4% and Nuapada 22.7%) respondents never agreed, 101 (23.9%)  (i.e. Gajapathi 24.4 and Nuapada 22.7%) respondents are seldom agreed , 55(13.0%) (i.e. Gajapathi 13.2%  and Nuapada 12.6%) respondents are often agreed and 22(5.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi 5.0% and Nuapada 5.9%) respondents are always agreed as they do not have interest in social activities.  This impacts the loss in participating social activities as the respondents have more pressure to work at different places to operate the law and order in order to maintain peace and harmony in societies. The researcher agreed that the respondents have low interest in social activities due to the work.

    It has been observed that the respondents are moderately agreed as they face verbal & physical aggression from the public sometimes in hard situations like traffic control, parking issues etc. (Table 3).


    It depicts that the total majority of 134 (31.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi= 34.3% and Nuapada = 25.2%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 112 (26.5%)  (i.e. Gajapathi=23.4% and Nuapada=34.5%) respondents are seldom agreed, 86 (20.4 %) (i.e. Gajapathi=20.1% and Nuapada=21.0%) respondents are never agreed, 51 (12.1%) (i.e. Gajapathi =12.9% and Nuapada = 10.1%) respondents are often agreed and 39 (9.3%) (i.e. Gajapathi = 9.2% and Nuapada =9.2%) respondents are always agreed as they face verbal & physical aggression from the public. The respondents are deliberately facing the aggression from public while on duty with physical   and sometimes verbal as they encountered with psychological impact on several incidents take place at work. The researcher agreed that there is a pressure on police force by aggression from the public verbally and physically in work place.

    It has been indicated by the researcher that the respondents getting disturbed when they see any accidents or with any domestic dispute at public places when they are on-duty (Table 4).


    This views that the total majority of 136 (32.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=32.0 % and Nuapada=30.3%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 100 (23.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=21.8% and Nuapada=28.6%) respondents are seldom agreed, 97 (23.0%) (i.e. Gajapathi=22.8% and Nuapada=23.5%) respondents are never agreed, 58 (13.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=15.8% and Nuapada=8.4%) respondents are often agreed and 31 (7.4%) (i.e. Gajapathi=6.6% and Nuapada=9.2%) respondents are always agreed as they get disturbed mood when witnessing accidents and domestic dispute occur. The respondents mood is depend upon the public support also as sometimes it disturbs with several disputes at public place while at witnessing the accidents, riots, disturbances. In the Study, the researcher confirmed that sometimes the mood will get disturbed while the respondents witnessed with accidents and disputes.

    Half of the majority said that they feel quiet and pleasant atmosphere in the society and also in the work place with people surrounding them. (Table 5). It opines that the total majority of 116 (27.5%) (i.e. Gajapathi=18.5% and Nuapada=22.7%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 116 (27.5%) (i.e. Gajapathi=26.7% and Nuapada=29.4%) respondents are seldom agreed, 83 (19.6%) (i.e. Gajapathi =18.5% and Nuapada=22.7%) respondents are never agreed, 64 (15.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=16.2% and Nuapada=12.6%) respondents are always agreed and 43 (10.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=11.2% and Nuapada=7.6%) respondents are often agreed as they feel quiet and pleasant atmosphere in the society. The respondent job demands affects their own personal relationships because of the mental health conditions by over workload, sometimes burnout situations, anxiety and physical pressure by superiors. The researcher agreed that the job affects the personal relationships oftenly when the respondents have more work pressure.


    Because of the state border area, majority of the respondents always feel difficulty in communicate properly with local language with people in the work places. (Table 6).


    This examines that the total majority of 122 (28.9 %) (i.e. Gajapathi=29.4% and Nuapada=27.7%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 121 (28.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=26.7 % and Nuapada=33.6%) respondents are seldom agreed, 77 (18.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=18.2% and Nuapada=18.5%) respondents are never agreed, 64 (15.2%) (i.e. Gajapathi=17.8% and Nuapada=8.4%) respondents are often agreed and 38 (9.0%) (i.e. Gajapathi=7.9% and Nuapada=11.8%) respondents are always agreed as they have difficulties arising in communicating with multi-linguistic public. The respondents feels difficulty by dealing with public because of the language problems facing in border areas, cannot able to communicate properly with several multilinguistic public citizens. The researcher confirmed that, sometimes the respondents have communication problems with public because of state border areas

    Near about half of the respondents agreed that they have insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects because of the pressure from superiors, sometimes cant able to detect the issues etc. (Table 7). It explores that the total majority of 159 (37.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=38.9% and Nuapada=34.5%) respondents are sometimes agreed, 103 (24.4%) (i.e. Gajapathi=22.4% and Nuapada=29.4%) respondents are seldom agreed, 62 (14.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=15.2% and Nuapada=13.4%) respondents are never agreed, 58 (13.7%) (i.e. Gajapathi=14.9% and Nuapada=10.9%) respondents are often agreed and 40 (9.5%) (i.e. Gajapathi=8.9% and Nuapada=11.8%) respondents are always agreed as they have insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects. The respondents are not able to cope with public to handle the aspects in the society because of insufficient facilities provided by the concern department or by the police organization. The researcher agreed that there are some insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects.


    This discussed the mean, standard deviation, skewness and kurtosis for Social domain variables for total 422 respondents of two selected districts i.e. Gajapathi-303 respondents and Nuapada-119 respondents (Table 8).


    The lowest mean value for Gajapathi is 2.4983 and the highest 2.7987. The SD is around 1.2 with a highest deviation among the opinions.  The data is positively skewed with the highest 0.315.  There is negative kurtosis with highest -0.812. The Lowest mean values for Nuapada is 2.4286 and the highest 2.7815. The SD is around 1.2 with high deviation. The data is positively skewed with the highest 0.579. There is positive and negative kurtosis with close to zero -0.074. Comparative descriptive statistics for Social domain variables of occupational stress across the observations, it indicates that Gajapathi district has the highest average mean and SD. The standard deviation is medium spread over.

    For the domain variable (Table 9), ‘Spend so long at work that outside relationships are suffering’ for men and women of significance is 0.017 and 0.022 respectively. There is a significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is less than significant level (t110.568=-2.326, p=0.017 and 0.022<0.05).


    The alternate hypothesis (H1) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.36218. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women. For ‘Loss of interest in social activities’ for men and women of significance is 0.368 and 0.387 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t109.987= 0.868, p=0.368 & 0.387>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is 0.13111. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly greater than the mean opinion of women. For ‘Verbal & Physical aggression from the public’ for men and women of significance is 0.154 and 0.175 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t109.279=-1.365, p=0.154 and 0.175>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.21467. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women. For the domain variable, ‘Disturbs mood when witnessing accidents and domestic dispute’ for men and women of significance is 0.241 and 0.262 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t109.760=-1.128, p=0.241 and 0.262>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.17554. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women. For ‘Job demands affect personal relationships (friends, relatives etc)’ for men and women of significance is 0.200 and 0.212 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t111.852=-1.256, p=0.200 and 0.212>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.19343. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women. For ‘Difficulties arising in communicating with multilinguistic’ for men and women of significance is 0.921 and 0.924 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t109.707=-0.096, p=0.921 & 0.924>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.01498. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women. For ‘Insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects’ for men and women of significance is 0.252 and 0.259 respectively. There is no significant difference in the mean opinion of gender on Social domain variable as the p-value is greater than significant level (t113.158=-1.134, p=0.252 & 0.259>0.05). The null hypothesis (H0) is accepted. The mean difference (t-value) is -0.16436. The t-value indicates that the mean opinion of men is significantly less than the mean opinion of women.

    In the study, it has been observed by the respondents that there is no difference between men and women respondents for Loss of interest in social activities, verbal and physical aggressions from public, job affects with family and friends and outside relationships, always feel quiet and pleasant atmosphere, insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects, arising difficulty with different languages and so on.

    Some of the other researchers (Mohanraj and Natesan, 2015) have been found that there is a lack of communication, satisfaction more stress due to workload, lack of support from family of women constables at workplace. It was also found that long working hours, Social interests, Job demands, education, marital status and experience has made significant variance in the stress among women constables and stress of the women constables was negatively correlated with their job satisfaction.  Some of the other researchers in abroad (He et al., 2002) found that the specific attention to analysing similar results while comparing across gender groups.

    This Shows Pearson Correlation Coefficient determines the relationship between working hours and social domain variables as there is weak correlation between spending long time at work, and a positive correlation for interest in social activities, aggression from public, mood offs, domestic disputes. (Table 10).


    For Gajapathi -There is a weak, negative correlation between working hours and Spend so long at work that outside relationships are suffering, which is not statistically significant at 2-tailed (r=0-.102, n=303, p=0.076>0.05). Therefore, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted that there is no statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress. For Nuapada-weak, negative which is not statistically significant at 2-tailed (r=-0.179, n=303, p=0.052>0.05). Therefore, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted that there is no statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress. For Gajapathi -There is a weak, positive correlation between working hours and Loss of interest in social activities, which is statistically significant at 2-tailed (r=0.274**, n=303, p=0.000<0.05). Therefore, alternate hypothesis (H1) is accepted that there is a statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress. For Nuapada-weak, positive which is not statistically significant at 2-tailed (r = 0.166, n=303, p= 0.072>0.05). Therefore, null hypothesis (H0) is accepted that there is no statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress

    For Gajapathi and Nuapada-There is a weak, positive correlation between working hours and Verbal & Physical aggression from the public, which is statistically significant at 2-tailed (r=0.442**, n=303, p= 0.000<0.05) and (r=0.196*, n=119, p=0.033<0.05) respectively. Therefore, alternate hypothesis (H1) is accepted that there is a statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress. For Gajapathi and Nuapada -There is a weak, positive correlation between working hours and Disturbs mood when witnessing accidents and domestic dispute, which is statistically significant at 2-tailed (r = 0.217**, n = 303, p= 0.000< 0.05) and (r = 0.230*, n = 119, p= 0.012< 0.05) respectively. Therefore, alternate hypothesis (H1) is accepted that there is a statistical significant correlation between working hours of the respondents and social domain variable of occupational stress

    The factor analysis illustrates the personal domain variables of occupational stress of the respondents. The analysis is done for two organizations i.e. Gajapathi and Nuapada districts of Odisha. The KMO and Bartlett’s Test shows the value of 0.763 and 0.688 of Gajapathi and Nuapada respectively. Both the values are above 0.5. Therefore, it is considered as good fit model and also the significance level is less than 0.05 (KMO=0.000<0.05).  Thus, the factor analysis may be considered as an appropriate technique for analyzing the salient effective variables of level of satisfaction. (Table 11).


    Principal Component Analysis shows that the respondents have given weightage to for Gajapathi, the highest values are 0.599 i.e. Loss of interest in social activities, 0.563 i.e. Verbal & Physical aggression from the public, 0.529 i.e. Feel quiet and pleasant atmosphere in the society and 0.480 i.e. Job demands affect personal relationships (friends, relatives etc). For Nuapada, the highest values are 0.803 i.e. Loss of interest in social activities, 0.625 i.e. Disturbs mood when witnessing accidents and domestic dispute, 0.608 i.e. Insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects and 0.594 i.e. Verbal & Physical aggression from the public (Table 12).


    Comparative descriptive statistics for Social domain variables of occupational stress across the observations, it indicates that Gajapathi district has the highest average mean and SD. For two district wise and family domain variables, there is no significant difference in the mean opinion of respondents of two districts. Administrative support is also a noteworthy variable because of the overall bureaucratic nature of police work. In general, police officers are required to follow departmental policy that may contrast with the police discretion in situations where quick judgment is necessary. The study established that work environment, work load, bureaucracy, interpersonal relationship was a cause of occupational stress. The study recommends that the government should mobilize resources to facilitate and support policing programs. The government should employ more police constables to reduce work load. The success of the job characteristic variables in predicting the stress-related outcomes supports previous research in this area and indicates that demand, control and support may offer valuable avenues for both reducing the levels of distress among police personnel while also enhancing their citizenship behaviours. The study established that gender of the police constables influenced level of occupational stress. The study recommends that: Police service commission should develop a policy on stress management to guide the induction, operations and counselling of police constables on their day to day duties as the women police personnel have manage the work-life as well as the home life.


  • Conclusion

    Out of 422 samples form Gajapathi and Nuapada Districts, One third respondents are suffering with outside relationships, 30% respondents are having lack of social activities, more than 35% respondents are feeling difficulty in communicating properly with local language, and nearly 40% respondents are having insufficient facilities to handle the society aspects. Work place aspects and social relationships of police personnel is increasing because of the irrespective work load, language communication problems, mood offs, public aggressions, on demand jobs, superior orders etc.


  • Reference
  • Austin, M., Jackson, E., 1977. Occupational mental health and the human service: A review,Health and Social Work, 2, 92−118.

    Aguayo, R., Vargas, C., Canadas, G.R., De La Fuente, E.I., 2017. Are socio-demographic factors associated to burnout syndrome in police officers? A correlational meta-analysis. Annals of Psychology 33, 383–392. DOI: 10.6018/analesps.33.2.260391

    Adams, I., Mastracci, S., 2019. Police body-worn cameras: effects on officers’ burnout and perceived organizational support. Police Q. 22, 5–30. doi: 10.1177/1098611118783987

    Dietrich, J., Smith, J., 1986. The nonmedical use of drugs including alcohol among police personnel: A critical literature review.Journal of Police Science and Administration14(4), 200−206.

    Ermasova, E., 2020. Perceived stress and coping among law enforcement officers: an empirical analysis of patrol versus non-patrol officers in Illinois, USA. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology 35(2), 1-16,  doi: 10.1007/s11896-019-09356-z.

    Hans, S., 1956. The Stress of Life,”New York, McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc, the Journal of Bone & Joint Surgery: April 1957 , 39(2), 479.

    He, N., Zhao, J., Archbold, C.A., 2002. Gender and Police stress-The convergent and divergent impact of work environment, work family conflict and stress coping mechanism of female and male police officers. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 25(4), 687-708.

    Kop, N., Euwema, M.C.,  Wilmar, S., 2001. Burnout, Job Stress and Violent Behavior among Dutch Police Officers,13, 326–340.

    Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S., 1984. Stress, appraisal and coping.New York: Springer Publishing Company, Inc.

    Luceno, M., Garcia-Alburne, Y., Talavera-Velasco, B., Martin-Garcia, J., 2016. Estres en policias espanoles segun rango ocupacional, sexo, edad y turno de trabajo. Psicothema 28(4), 389–393. DOI: 10.7334/psicothema2015.310.

    Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W.B., Leiter, M.P., 2001. Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology 52, 397–422.

    Maslach, C., Leiter, M.P., 2017. Understanding burnout: New models. In Cooper, C.L., Quick, J.C. (Eds.), The handbook of stress and health: A guide to research and practice 36–56. Wiley-Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118993811.ch3.

    McCreary, D.R., Fong. I., Groll Daniel, L., 2017. Measuring policing stress meaningfully: establishing norms and cut-off values for the Operational and Organizational Police Stress Questionnaires. Police Practice and Research 18, 612–623. DOI: 10.1080/15614263.2017.1363965.

    Mohanraj, C., Natesan, M.R., 2015. Stress and job satisfaction: An empirical study among the women police constables in Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India, International Journal of Interdisciplinary and Multidisciplinary Studies (IJIMS), 2(5), 153–157.

    Pereira, A., Oliveria, A.C., Bartolo, A., Monterio, S.,  Vagos, P., Jardim, J., 2019. Reliability and factor structure of the 10-item kessler psychological distress scale (K10) among Portuguese adults. Ciencia Saude Coletiva 24, 729–736. doi: 10.1590/1413-81232018243.06322017.

    Schaufeli, W., Enzmann, D., 1998. “The Burnout Companion To Study And Practice: A Critical Analysis,” Issues in Occupational Health, CRC Press, ISBN 9780748406975 - CAT# TF2100, November, 224

    Singh, L.A., Agarwal, V.,  2011. Occupational Stress of Officers Vis-A-Vis Subordinates of Security Forces in Relation to Personality Types: A Comparative Study,” BVIMSR’s Journal of Management Research 3(1), Apr 2011.

    Violanti, J.M., Owens, S.L., McCanlies, E., Fekedulegn, D.,  Andrew, M.E., 2019. Law enforcement suicide: a review. Policing 42, 141–164. DOI: 10.1108/pijpsm-05-2017-0061


Cite

1.
Chakravarthy PK. Life of Cops at Work Areas and their Social Relationships with the Society IJBSM [Internet]. 28Dec.2020[cited 8Feb.2022];11(1):558-566. Available from: http://www.pphouse.org/ijbsm-article-details.php?article=1428

People also read

Research Article

Phenotypic Screening of F3 Rice (Oryza sativa L.) Population Resistance Associated with Sheath Blight Disease

Ashmita Timsina, Uday Kumar Thera and Naveenkumar Ramasamy

Biplot-analysis, cluster analysis, IC277275, IC277332, Sheath blight, UPGMA

Published Online : 31 May 2022

Research Article

Detection of B. anthracis from Environmental Samples during Outbreak in Tamilnadu by Molecular Methods

K. Senthilkumar, G. Ravikumar and K. G. Tirumurugaan

Anthrax, Biosafety, Cattle, Environment, PCR, Phylogenesis, Soil, Zoonoses

Published Online : 31 May 2022

Research Article

Phenotypic Stability for Fruit yield and its Components of Brinjal

V. Chaitanya and   R. V. S. K. Reddy

Brinjal, environment, genotypes, hybrids, quality parameters, stability, yield

Published Online : 27 May 2022

Short Research

Effect of Water Stress on Yield and Seed Quality of Coriander (Coriandrum sativum L.)

Priyanka Thakur and Anju Thakur

Biological yield, dry matter index, harvest index (HI)

Published Online : 07 Feb 2018