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, “fuck” 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 with a pre-registered experiment administered to a national sample of police and human resources executives ( n = 1492), with each respondent evaluating multiple vignettes ( n = 5280 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.
Police officers use profanity like “fuck” for various professional purposes—to establish authority, build camaraderie, or reduce tension—but current department policies either don’t exist or are too vague to effectively regulate inappropriate use. A survey of nearly 1,500 police and human resources executives found that context matters significantly: who the profanity is directed at and why it’s being used should determine whether it violates professional standards. This research provides a framework for police departments to create more precise policies that distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable use of strong language on the job.
(AI-generated summary, v1, January 2026)
Citations: 7 (as of January 2026)