*3.2.6 Subjective police stress results*

*Occupational Wellbeing*

police officers.

*3.2.4 Data analysis*

subsamples into a single tactical sample group.

*3.2.5 Objective physiological police stress results*

frontline and tactical officers.

(p < 0.05) (See **Figure 1**).

low shared variance to other general stress measures, and positively correlates with other measures of job satisfaction [34]. For this study, the 20 items of the operational stress subscale of the PSQ (PSQ-Op) was used for measuring selfreported subjective operational job-context related stress in frontline and tactical

Pairwise comparisons confirmed that tactical regional and federal-level subsamples did not significantly differ from each other across all time points for cortisol and self-reported stress data, and sufficient to combine regional and federal

For subjective stress comparisons, self-reported stress responses on the PSQ had a non-normal distribution violating the assumptions of a t-test. Therefore, a Wilcoxon rank sum test was used to compare overall reported stress between

Average diurnal cortisol levels were calculated for each police participant at each time point. Factorial ANOVA was performed to compare specific diurnal time point cortisol levels across each group. Repeated-measures mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Bonferroni corrections was used to compare multiple

As previously cited in Planche et al. [10], ANOVA comparisons for betweengroup diurnal cortisol differences revealed that police officers had significantly higher levels of cortisol at all collected time points in comparison to the general population (p < 0.05). In comparison to frontline officers, tactical officers displayed significantly higher levels of cortisol at awakening and 30 minutes post-awakening in comparison to the frontline officers (p < 0.05), non-significantly different levels 11-hours post (p > 0.05), and significantly lower levels of cortisol at 17 h post

*Overview of diurnal salivary cortisol relationships across 17 h from waking in frontline police (n = 52), tactical* 

*police (n = 44), and the general population (n = 18,698). Adapted from Planche et al., 2019.*

pairwise differences in cortisol levels between groups across time points.

**120**

**Figure 1.**

Using Wilcoxon rank sum testing, frontline officers self-reported significantly higher total levels of operational stress in comparison to tactical officers (MedianFrontline = 56, IQR = 33; MedianTactical = 44, IQR = 16; p < 0.05) with small effect (r = 0.26) (See **Figure 2**).

When comparing the means across PSQ-Op items (See **Table 1**), the two groups had the largest magnitude differences (ΔMean), with frontline reporting greater stress, on: negative comments from the public, upholding a "higher image" in public, over-time demands, and lack of understanding from family and friends about work. Furthermore, these four items fell within the six lowest reported sources of operational stress for tactical officers. In comparison, tactical officers reported more objective risk items such as being injured on the job, traumatic events, and working alone at night as higher levels of stress in comparison to frontline. For both groups, fatigue, paperwork, and not enough time available to spend with family were ranked among the highest sources of stress.

**Figure 2.**

*Boxplot distribution of police (frontline and tactical) total scores on the PSQ-Op. Frontline officers selfreported significantly higher total levels of operational stress in comparison to tactical officers (p < 0.05).*

#### **3.3 Discussion**

The aim of the current study was to discern potential differences of tactical and frontline police officers' subjective self-reported stress, and the relationship to objective occupational hazard profiles. It was expected that, similar to previous findings of police objective stress (i.e., diurnal salivary cortisol), officers from tactical teams would report significantly higher levels of subjective stress on the PSQ-Op in comparison to frontline officers. However, in contrast to our hypotheses, Wilcoxon rank sum testing revealed that 1) frontline officers reported significantly


#### **Table 1.**

*Frontline (n = 55) and tactical police (n = 44) mean and standard deviation (SD) scores for total PSQ-Op sum, as well as individual items, and magnitude difference scores between frontline and tactical (*Δ*Mean). Average stress level of each item compared to recommended PSQ-Op cut-off scores: Low stress (*≤*2.0), moderate stress (2.1–3.4), high stress (*≥*3.5) [34].*

higher levels of overall subjective stress in comparison to tactical officers, and 2) frontline and tactical police reported qualitatively different stressors, with tactical police reporting more work-related objective stressors, and frontline police reporting more public-image related stressors.

Results are discussed within the limitations of the study. First, due to the difficulty of recruiting police samples, this study consisted of smaller sample sizes, which limits its generalization capabilities. Second, this is data is strictly correlational, thus causal relationships cannot be stated. However, we can review the data results within the lens of modern policing in regards to the following perspectives:

1.The current media spotlight focused on frontline officers, including psychological expectations and demands

**123**

*Physiological Stress Responses Associated with High-Risk Occupational Duties*

While the subjective stress findings countered our hypothesis, they may be explained by current issues and pressures in modern policing. Rising issues and media coverage of police incidents such as excessive use of force, systemic racism, and criminal charges, continue to erode the public's trust, as well as damage the police-community relationship [35, 36]. This inference is further bolstered by the findings of this study that frontline officers considered PSQ-Op items related to public image greater of sources of stress than tactical officers did. In comparison, tactical officers are only called to the most high-risk and violent situations (e.g., hostage, school shootings, etc.) and in comparison to frontline police are less in the spotlight, thus aligning with the current study results that subjective stress reported by tactical officers reflected primarily objective operational stressors

Due to the duties of a tactical officer, they are much more likely to encounter life-threatening situations. CAR can also represent psychological anticipation of the day, with higher demands predicting a more pronounced CAR [37]. Given officers' pre-existing awareness of the increased risk associated with joining a tactical unit, individuals with certain personality characteristics or physiological profiles (e.g., cortisol) may be self-selecting towards higher-risk occupational roles. However, this theory is difficult to test without longitudinal data about individuals

Another possible explanation as to why the results reveal a higher objective stress profile but lower subjective stress profile among tactical officers compared to frontline may be due to the physical condition of tactical officers in comparison to frontline officers. By demand of their duties, tactical teams are required to remain in good health and take part in many hours of specialized training, including physical fitness [38–40]. Higher levels of exercise have been found to affect diurnal cortisol patterns, particularly CAR, in lower-risk occupations, the general population, and athletes. Increased regular exercise has been shown to increase CAR; seniors who completed a 6-month aerobic exercise intervention displayed significant increased CAR, but not associated with changes in diurnal cortisol as measured by area under the curve (AUC) [41]. Similarly, high-performance athletes also exhibit higher diurnal cortisol patterns including an elevated CAR response [42]. These findings parallel the results of the present study, in which tactical teams display elevated CAR, but maintain similar cortisol levels to front-

By the same token, evidence suggests that frontline officers do not meet the same level of physical fitness requirements as tactical officers. Frontline officers in this study were not required to maintain physical fitness, rather it remained the responsibility of the individual officer [43, 44]. With further support from findings of the present study, frontline officers reported finding time to stay in good physical condition as a higher source of stress on the PSQ-Op than tactical officers did, suggesting frontline officers have greater difficulty maintaining exercise as part of daily routine. Due to the original design of the study, it is difficult to determine whether the physiological and subjective stress differences between tactical and frontline are exercise related. However, future research could control for exercise by targeting frontline and tactical samples with the same exercise regiments and

practices and compare their cortisol levels to rule out this possibility.

*DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.93943*

prior to entering a high-risk occupation of any kind.

*3.3.2 Stress and physical demands*

line officers later in the day.

*3.3.1 Stress and psychological demands*

(i.e., risk to life).

2.Physical fitness requirements of tactical versus frontline police
