This study focuses on police profanity, with a particular interest developing reasonable policy to regulate the use of the word “fuck.” Officers employ “fuck” as a linguistic tool to accomplish a range of goals, such as establishing authority, fostering solidarity, and diffusing tension. However, âfuckâ can also be used derogatorily, and negatively impact public assessments of police actions. Policy in this area is either absent, overly broad, or inappropriate to its intended use. Following brief, unstructured interviews with line and executive officers, I propose a novel policy theory of profanity, deriving target and intent. I test the theory in a pre-registered experiment administered to a sample of police and human resources executives (n=1,492), with each respondent evaluating multiple vignettes (n=5,280 observations). Results support the proposed theory and generate useful recommendations for practitioners interested in strengthening the ability of agencies to constrain professionally inappropriate use of profanity in the police workplace.
This study examines how police officers use profanity, particularly the word “fuck,” finding that officers use it for various purposes including asserting authority and building camaraderie with colleagues, but also sometimes in ways that harm public perception of police. Through interviews and experiments with nearly 1,500 police and HR executives, the research develops a framework for creating better policies that distinguish between appropriate and inappropriate uses of profanity based on who it’s directed at and why it’s being used. This matters because most police departments currently lack clear, practical guidelines for officer language, leaving agencies unable to effectively address unprofessional conduct while still allowing officers to communicate effectively in high-stress situations.
(AI-generated summary, v1, January 2026)
Citations: 1 (as of January 2026)