*3.3.1 Stress and psychological demands*

*Occupational Wellbeing*

*Work related activities on days off (e.g.* 

*Traumatic events (e.g. MVA, domestics,* 

*Not enough time available to spend with* 

*Finding time to stay in good physical* 

*Occupation-related health issues (e.g. back* 

*Lack of understanding from family and* 

*Limitations to your social life (e.g. who your friends are, where you socialize)*

*Friends / family feel the effects of the stigma associated with your job*

*stress (2.1–3.4), high stress (*≥*3.5) [34].*

*friends about your work*

*court, community events)*

*death, injury)*

*friends and family*

*condition*

*pain)*

**Table 1.**

**122**

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

*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* 

**PSQ-Op Item Frontline mean(SD) Tactical mean(SD)** Δ**Mean Total Police Operational Stress Score 57.95(23.08) 45.60(13.90) 12.35** *Shift work* 3.20(1.64) 3.16(1.27) 0.04 *Working alone at night* 2.28(1.32) 2.15(1.20) 0.13 *Over-time demands* 2.91(1.69) 1.69(0.84) 1.22 *Risk of being injured on the job* 2.53(1.68) 2.47(1.08) 0.06

*Managing your social life outside of work* 2.89(1.65) 2.47(1.24) 0.42

*Paperwork* 3.51(2.03) 2.84(1.33) 0.67 *Eating healthy at work* 3.11(1.69) 2.30(1.01) 0.81

*Fatigue (e.g. shift work, over-time)* 3.65(1.79) 3.28(1.50) 0.37

*Making friends outside the job* 2.24(1.53) 1.84(1.00) 0.40 *Upholding a "higher image" in public* 3.00(1.72) 1.58(0.66) 1.42 *Negative comments from the public* 3.40(1.98) 1.86(1.01) 1.54

*Feeling like you are always on the job* 2.73(1.72) 2.14(1.28) 0.59

3.00(1.59) 2.65(1.62) 0.35

2.56(1.49) 2.26(1.24) 0.30

3.25(1.67) 2.88(1.53) 0.37

3.40(1.62) 2.65(1.31) 0.75

3.02(1.69) 2.26(1.20) 0.76

2.70(1.69) 1.67(0.64) 1.03

2.72(1.52) 1.74(0.98) 0.98

2.31(1.40) 2.02(1.18) 0.29

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

1.The current media spotlight focused on frontline officers, including psycho-

the lens of modern policing in regards to the following perspectives:

2.Physical fitness requirements of tactical versus frontline police

more public-image related stressors.

logical expectations and demands

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 (i.e., risk to life).

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