Exploring confirmation bias in policing (2024)

Mark Twain famously said, “It’s not what you don’t know that gets you into trouble, it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.” Here is the deal: Human nature tends to seek and interpret evidence in ways that align with our preexisting beliefs and expectations, a phenomenon known as confirmation bias.

Confirmation bias influences everyone

Confirmation bias is not exclusive to policing but affects individuals across all professions and situations. However, in the vast landscape of the criminal justice system, key people are all at risk of being ensnared by the subtle yet powerful traps of confirmation bias. These individuals include police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, forensic scientists, judges, jurors, dispatchers and witnesses. This bias can significantly influence decisions, leading to errors with far-reaching consequences. Human susceptibility to confirmation bias is widespread in our lives and society, as evidenced by numerous studies over many years. We all harbor preconceived biases and often fixate on evidence that aligns with our beliefs while disregarding contradictory information. In sum, we want to prove ourselves right.

Seeking information to confirm what we know

For instance, when was the last time you genuinely considered viewpoints that contradicted your own? We often fall into the trap of selectively choosing information that reinforces our beliefs, overlooking data that challenges them. Although, it could be argued that even without confirmation bias, it is hard to find quality impartial information in today’s landscape. Surprisingly, in 1983, there were 50 major media corporations, whereas today, there are only six. This consolidation of media makes it difficult to seek out a diversity of viewpoints on various topics. It should be noted that even the media, which is supposed to strive for objectivity, is also prone to confirmation bias, as many officers have experienced.

Confirmation bias serves a purpose

People use mental shortcuts, which allow us to quickly make decisions without gathering all the relevant facts. At times, we rely on a few key pieces of information to produce a rapid response rather than waiting for a slower, more deliberative and effortful process to weigh all possible options. This phenomenon is known as heuristics. Heuristics is really helpful when police need to make quick decisions and are not afforded discretionary time. In fact, these shortcuts can be lifesaving, given the right circ*mstances and training. Yet, heuristics also carry risks of making errors when relying on them in improper circ*mstances.

Confirmation bias and dispatch priming

Officers can find themselves navigating situations where information given from dispatch is incomplete and/or inaccurate. This can lead to disastrous results for police outcomes. Dr. Paul Taylor is an assistant professor at the University of Colorado Denver. He is actively involved in police research and training nationwide. Noteworthy, a scenario-based study conducted by Dr. Taylor showed that priming officers with inaccurate dispatch details regarding whether a subject was holding a cell phone or a gun substantially heightened the chances of a shooting error. Specifically, officers informed in route that the individual seemed to be holding a gun shot the individual who was actually holding a cell phone over twice as frequently as officers in the control group did (62% versus 28%), resulting in a notably elevated rate of misjudgments based on incorrect facts. This is quite shocking.

You might be thinking, “Are you saying we should not pay attention to what dispatch says?” No. Dispatch is there to help police by passing on information that is helpful to officers at the scene. However, what I am saying is officers should be keenly aware that dispatch doesn’t always get reliable information from callers. Dispatch has a hard job. Dispatch is receiving information, interpreting information, classifying information, assessing information and distributing this information to first responders and others. At every step of the dispatch process, possibilities of errors and misunderstandings can occur.

9-1-1 caller: Victim or suspect?

Being a first responder is a bit like drinking information downstream of the river and knowing there is potential that the river has been polluted upstream. As a result, you better bring your filter. Have you ever had a domestic violence incident when the experienced suspect initiated contact with 9-1-1 first and then falsely accused the true victim of being the suspect? If so, the suspect is playing off a principle that academic researchers call availability heuristic. Availability heuristic describes the human tendency to lean toward favoring our initial thoughts. People are designed to place more trust in known information over the unknown. They also tend to overestimate the accuracy of the information they have first, even in the face of better subsequent information. Perhaps you have been in a situation where you believe your co-worker has read an obvious situation at the scene completely wrong. You might be thinking your co-worker is intentionally misreading the situation because they must not want to write a report. However, it is more likely your co-worker has fallen prey to availability heuristic, and you should step in to help them see a clearer picture of the situation. Officers must strive to uphold objectivity while assessing situations and resist the natural inclination to do otherwise.

Modus operandi

We all know officers are taught to use modus operandi (a criminal’s characteristic method of operation) to profile criminal behavior. Importantly, there is nothing wrong with this practice. In fact, picking up on criminal behaviors and patterns and matching them to potential suspects is good police work. However, it would not be hard to imagine a scenario where a detective fixates on a modus operandi that aligns with their initial assumptions about who the suspect could be at the exclusion of other suspects. Having tunnel vision on the ideas that confirm our original idea could potentially lead to overlooking or discounting crucial information that could alter the course of an investigation. Sometimes, our first reaction to something seems correct but is actually wrong and requires thinking more deeply about it.

Can you solve it?

Renowned psychologist Dr. Daniel Kahneman, recipient of the Nobel Prize, recently passed away. In his influential book Thinking, Fast and Slow (tinyurl.com/3369eak7), Kahneman gives the following problem:

A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total.

The bat costs $1 more than the ball.

How much does the ball cost?

Stop here and take a bit to think about it …

Did you say, “10 cents”? This is a common answer and usually the first response that comes to mind. Nevertheless, the 10-cent answer is also wrong! I am serious, it is wrong. If the ball costs 10 cents, then the bat would cost $1.10, which would bring the total to $1.20. The bat and the ball cost $1.10 in total, not $1.20.

The correct answer is the ball costs 5 cents and the bat $1.05.Here is why people often get it wrong. They unconsciously substituted a definitive statement that the bat costs $1.00 into the problem, but the problem doesn’t say that. It says the bat cost $1.00 more than the ball.

Summary

The point I am trying to make is people frequently substitute difficult problems with simpler ones in order to solve them quickly. Our natural inclination toward intuitive problem-solving often relies on bias, which can veer police investigations off course. Additionally, we often overestimate how accurate our first reaction is, even when presented with more reliable information later on. Maybe some of you are still thinking I am wrong about that math problem? Simply put, we each harbor biases that favor evidence supporting our beliefs and downplay contradictory information. These biases have the potential to impact policing decisions, resulting in errors with widespread repercussions. Therefore, as law enforcement professionals, it is important to avoid too much reliance on intuition and instead dedicate time and effort to carefully filter and reflect on our investigative choices. It doesn’t hurt either to run our ideas by other competent officers to get their perspectives, too. Also, you matter, don’t give up.

References

Gillooly, J. W. (2020). “How 911 callers and call‐takers impact police encounters with the public: The case of the Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest.” Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 787–804. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12508

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow (1st ed.). Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Nickerson, R. S. (1998). “Confirmation bias: A ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises.” Review of General Psychology, 2(2), 175–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.2.2.175

Taylor, P. L. (2019). “Dispatch priming and the police decision to use deadly force.” Police Quarterly, 23(3), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611119896653