What causes adverse policing outcomes, such as excessive uses of force and unnecessary arrests? Prevailing explanations focus on problematic officers or deficient regulations and oversight. Here, we introduce an overlooked perspective. We suggest that the cognitive demands inherent in policing can undermine officer decision-making. Unless officers are prepared for these demands, they may jump to conclusions too quickly without fully considering alternative ways of seeing a situation. This can lead to adverse policing outcomes. To test this perspective, we created a new training that teaches officers to consider different ways of interpreting the situations they encounter. We evaluated this training using a randomized controlled trial with 2,070 officers from the Chicago Police Department. In a series of lab assessments, we find that treated officers were significantly more likely to consider a wider range of evidence and develop more explanations for subjects' actions. Critically, we also find that training affected officer performance in the field, leading to reductions in uses of force, discretionary arrests, and arrests of Black civilians. Meanwhile, officer activity levels remained unchanged, and trained officers were less likely to be injured on duty. Our results highlight the value of considering the cognitive aspects of policing and demonstrate the power of using behaviorally informed approaches to improve officer decision-making and policing outcomes.
What causes adverse policing outcomes, such as excessive uses of force and unnecessary arrests? Prevailing explanations focus on problematic officers or deficient regulations and oversight. Here, we introduce an overlooked perspective. We suggest that the cognitive demands inherent in policing can undermine officer decision-making. Unless officers are prepared for these demands, they may jump to conclusions too quickly without fully considering alternative ways of seeing a situation. This can lead to adverse policing outcomes. To test this perspective, we created a new training that teaches officers to consider different ways of interpreting the situations they encounter. We evaluated this training using a randomized controlled trial with 2,070 officers from the Chicago Police Department. In a series of lab assessments, we find that treated officers were significantly more likely to consider a wider range of evidence and develop more explanations for subjects' actions.
We also measured a large number of outcomes related to officer performance in the field and report findings for a subset of these. The findings suggest potential improvements but, given the many outcomes and the frequent lack of statistical significance, these findings are preliminary. They suggest that training leads
Critically, We also find that training affected officer performance in the field, leading to reductions in uses of force, discretionary arrests, and arrests of Black civilians.
They also suggest that
Meanwhile, officer activity levels remained unchanged, and trained officers were less likely to be injured on duty. Our results highlight the value of considering the cognitive aspects of policing and
offer hypotheses for future research on
demonstrate the power of using behaviorally informed approaches to improve officer decision-making and policing outcomes.
No-Spin’s Study Overview
Large, high-quality RCT of the Sit-D police training program doesn’t report findings for most of its preregistered primary outcomes related to officer performance in the field, preventing reliable conclusions about program effectiveness. Of the 5 primary impacts that are reported, most signal beneficial effects (e.g., reductions in officer use of force in the months post-training) but aren’t statistically significant – so are suggestive but not yet reliable.
Program:
- Situational Decision-making Training (Sit-D) is a 4-session training that teaches officers that “to respond effectively to ambiguous situations, it is critical to go beyond one’s first impression and develop additional possible explanations for what is occurring.”
Study Design:
- The study randomly assigned 2,070 police officers in Chicago Police Department to treatment (Sit-D training) vs control. Based on careful review, this was a high-quality RCT (e.g., large sample, baseline balance, minimal attrition, preregistered analyses).
- Over 86% of officers assigned to the treatment group completed the Sit-D training, reflecting successful program implementation.
Findings:
- The study doesn’t report findings for most of its preregistered primary outcomes related to officer performance in the field, preventing reliable conclusions about Sit-D’s impact on policing outcomes.
- Specifically, the study only reports impacts for 5 of its 14 primary outcomes. For these 5 outcomes, the study only reports impacts over the full year post-training for 2 of them (it reports shorter-term – e.g., four month – findings for the rest, even though full-year data were available).
- We created the following table summarizing findings for the 5 primary outcomes that are reported. Some effects are sizable (e.g., reduced officer use of force) but only one is statistically significant and it could have appeared by chance due to the measurement of multiple primary outcomes.
Comment:
- Sit-D may well be a promising program. This was a high-quality RCT and, while many of its key impacts are unreported, those that are reported signal beneficial effects (even if only suggestive due to lack of statistical significance).
- But readers can’t confidently gauge the program’s promise without seeing impact findings for all 14 primary outcomes over the full 12 months post-training – to rule out the possibility that the findings reported thus far are not representative (e.g., are overly rosy).
- We’d strongly encourage the researchers to post a table showing the full set of primary impact findings over the 12 month follow-up for this important study.
- Data Colada posted a thoughtful piece on the Sit-D RCT that makes points similar to ours (linked here, along with the study team’s response).
- The study authors posted a response to our No-Spin report, which we link to here as an FYI. However, we’ve reviewed the response and stand by our report.
Click or tap a highlight to see No-Spin’s comment