Skip to main content

Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations

Abstract

Background

Research on racial bias in the United States includes findings that Americans tend to view blacks as more dangerous than whites. Some have argued that this bias provides a likely explanation for the disproportionate number of ethnic and racial minorities shot by police. One piece of evidence for this proposition comes from experimental work in which research participants push “shoot” or “don’t shoot” buttons when still images of people and objects that may or may not be weapons are presented in rapid succession. These studies have established that participants tend to subconsciously pair black individuals with weapons and white individuals with neutral objects. However, it is not clear from these studies that the subconscious racial bias identified by researchers affects actual decisions to shoot, perhaps because the techniques used to assess the bias-shooting link bear so little resemblance to real-world shootings.

Methods

This paper reports on the results of a novel laboratory experiment designed to overcome this critical limitation by using high-fidelity deadly force judgment and decision-making simulators to assess both subconscious and behavioral bias among 48 research participants, recruited from the general population.

Results

Study results suggest that subconscious associations between race and threat exhibited by participants are not linked to their shooting behavior.

Conclusions

The implications of this finding for understanding how race and ethnicity affect decisions to shoot, and for conducting empirical research on this important topic, are discussed.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Notes

  1. 1.

    Since 2002, Correll and colleagues have extended their line of experimental “shoot”/”don’t shoot” research to include police officers as research subjects and expanded the “minority suspect” category beyond blacks to include Hispanics and Asians (Correll et al. 2006, 2007a, b; Sadler et al. 2012).

  2. 2.

    Advanced Interactive Systems’ (AIS) Professional Range Instruction Simulation (PRISim).

  3. 3.

    In NAT, complexity refers to the number of independent parts in a system (e.g. number of suspects, bystanders, officers, weapons etc.) and coupling refers to how much change in one part will effect change in another (e.g. distance between an officer and a suspect).

  4. 4.

    The headgear used was B-Alert X10 wireless ambulatory EEG caps; manufactured by Advanced Brain Monitoring in Carlsbad, CA, USA). These caps are comfortable and non-intrusive, and can be set up in less than 5 min. They can record up to 9 channels of high fidelity EEG, and have wireless acquisition and transmission up to 10 m, a vital feature given the size of the simulator ranges.

  5. 5.

    We chose alpha suppression as our indicator of threat response because it is easier to measure accurately than other neurophysiological phenomena, such as the P200 ERP’s used by Correll et al. (2006). ERP’s are brief in duration and can be difficult to detect because they co-occur with other electrical signals (Kolb and Whishaw 2001). Alpha waves, on the other hand, are of longer duration, are robust, and are relatively easy to monitor, which is an important consideration for experimental designs that involve substantial participant movement, such as the experiments described here.

  6. 6.

    Approved by the Washington State University Institutional Review Board.

  7. 7.

    Again using the R Project for statistical computing; model = lme(fixed = AlphaSupression ∼ Black + Hispanic + Difficulty, random = ∼1 | Subject, method = "ML"). See reaction time model above for an interpretation of the model.

References

  1. Baumann, M.R., Sniezek, J.A., & Buerkle, C.A. (2001) “Self-Evaluation, Stress and Performance: A Model of Decision Making Under Acute Stress.” In E. Salas and G. Klein, Eds., Linking Expertise and Naturalistic Decision Making. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Chap. 8, pp. 139–158.

  2. Blascovich, J., Wyer, N., Swart, L., & Kibler, J. (1997). Racism and racial categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 1364–1372.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Brown, J., & Langan, P. (2001). Policing and homicide, 1976–98: justifiable homicide by police, police officers murdered by felons. Bureau of Justice Statistics: U.S. Department of Justice. Washington.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Camm, A. J., Malik, M., et al. (1996). Heart rate variability: standards of measurement, physiological interpretation, and clinical use. European Heart Journal, 17, 354–381.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Carretie, L., Martin-Loeches, M., Hinojosa, J., & Mercado, F. (2001). Emotion and attention interaction studied through event related potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(8), 1109–1128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Collins, R. (2008). Violence: a microsociological theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Correll, J., & Keesee, T. (2009). Racial bias in the decision to shoot? May: The Police Chief. 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2002). The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1314–1329.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Correll, J., Urland, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2006). Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: the role of threat perception and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 120–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Wittenbrink, B., Sadler, M. S., & Keesee, T. (2007a). Across the thin blue line: police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92(6), 1006–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2007b). Stereotypes and racial bias in the decision to shoot. European Journal of Social Psychology, 37(6), 1102–1117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Devine, P., & Elliot, A. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? the Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services Division. (2006). Violent Encounters: a study of felonious assaults on our nation’s law enforcement officers. Washington: U.S. Department of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Fiske, S., & Neuberg, S. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individualting processes: Influences of information and motication on attention and interpretation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol.23, pp. 1–74). New York: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Fyfe, J. J. (1978).Shots fired: an examination of New York City Police firearms discharges,Ann Arbor: University Microfilms International.

  16. Fyfe, J. J. (1982),Readings on Police Use of Deadly Force. Washington, DC: Police Foundation.

  17. Geller, W. A. (1982). Deadly force: what we know. Journal of PoliceScience and Administration, 10, 151–177.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Geller, W. A., & Scott, M. (1992). Deadly force: what we know. Washington: Police Executive Research Forum.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Goldkamp, J. (1976). Minorities as victims of police shootings: interpretations of racial disproportionality and police use of deadly force. Justice System Journal, 2, 169–183.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Greene, J., Sommerville, R., Nystrom, L., Darley, J., & Cohen, J. (2001). An fMRI investigation of emotional engagement in moral judgment. Science, 293, 2105–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Inn, A., Wheeler, A. C. & Sparling, C. L. (1977). The effects of suspect race and situation hazardon police officer shooting behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 7, 27–37.

  22. Ito, T., & Urland, G. (2003). Race and gender on the brain: electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(4), 616–626.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Jacobs, D., & O’Brien, R. (1998). The determinants of deadly force: a structural analysis of police violence. The American Journal of Sociology, 103(4), 837–862.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. James, L., Vila, B. & Daratha, K. (2013) Influence of Suspect Race and Ethnicity on Decisions to Shoot in High Fidelity Deadly Force Judgment and Decision-Making Simulations. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(2), 189–212.

  25. Klimesch, W. (1999). EEG alpha and theta oscillations reflect cognitive and memory performance: a review and analysis. Brain Research. Brain Research Reviews, 29(2–3), 169–195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Klinger, D. (2004). Into the kill zone: a cop’s eye view of deadly force. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Klinger, D. (2005). Social theory and the street cop: the case of deadly force. Ideas in American policing essay number 7. Washington: Police Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Kolb, B. & Whishaw, I. (2001). An Introduction to Brain and Behavior. New York: Worth.

  29. Krivo, L. & Peterson, R. (2012). Race, Crime and Justice: Contexts and Complexities. American Academy of Political and Social Sciences, 623.

  30. Liska, A. E. & Yu, J. (1992).Specifying and testing the threat hypothesis: police use of deadly force.In A. E. Liska (Ed.) Social Threat and Social Control (pp. 53–68). Albany: State University of New YorkPress.

  31. Macdonald, J. M., Kaminski, R. J., Alpert, G. P. & Tennenbaum, A. N. (2001). The temporal relationship between police killings of civilians and criminal homicide: a refined version of the danger-perception theory. Crime Delinquency, 42(2), 155–172.

  32. Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: the role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1–12.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Payne, B. K., Lambert, A. J., & Jacoby, L. L. (2002). Best laid plans: effects of goals on accessibility bias and cognitive control in race-based misperceptions of weapons. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 384–396.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Perrow, C. (1984).Normal Accidents. New York: Basic Books

  35. Plant, E. A., Peruche, B. M., & Butz, D. A. (2005). Eliminating automatic racial bias: making race non-diagnostic for responses to criminal suspects. Journal of Experimental and Social Psychology, 41, 141–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Roza, M., Voogd, J., Jense, H., & van Gool, P. Roza, M. (1999) “Fidelity Requirements Specification: A Process Oriented View,” ‘99 Fall Simulation Interoperability Workshop, September 1999, Paper 032. Downloaded 12 Feb. 2013 from http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.201.8554&rep=rep1&type=pdf

  37. Rosich, K. J. (2007).Race, Ethnicity, and the Criminal Justice System.Washington, DC:American Sociological Association.

  38. Sadler, M., Correll, J., Park, B., & Judd, C. (2012). The world is not black and white: racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context. Journal of Social Issues, 68(2), 286–313.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Scharf, P., & Binder, A. (1983). The badge and the bullet: police use of deadly force. New York: Praegar.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Sherman, L. & Langworthy, R. (1979). Measuring homicide by police officers. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 4, 546–560.

  41. Smith, B. W. (2004). Structural and organizational predictors of homicide by police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27, 539–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Sorenson, J., Marquart, J., & Brock, D. (1993). Factors relating to killings of felons by police officers: a test of the community violence and conflict hypotheses. Justice Quarterly, 10(3), 417–440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Takagi, P. (1974). A garrison state in a “democratic” society. Crime and Scholarly Justice, 1, 27–33.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Vila, B., James, L., James, S. & and Waggoner, B. (2012). Final Report: Developing a Common Metric for Evaluating Police Performance in Deadly Force Situations. National Institute of Justice, grant no. 2008IJCX0015, 27 Aug.

Download references

Acknowledgments

Research supported by Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract nos. NBCHC070101 and NBCHC090054, National Institute of Justice grant no. 2008-IJ-CX-0015, and Office of Naval Research DURIP grant no. N000140810802.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lois James.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

James, L., Klinger, D. & Vila, B. Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations. J Exp Criminol 10, 323–340 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9204-9

Download citation

Keywords

  • Unconscious bias
  • Behavioral bias
  • Race/ethnicity
  • Decisions to shoot