By Richard O. Segovia, Ph.D., Ed.D. and Brian Sunderman, MA
Cognitive biases, specifically confirmation bias, significantly impact law enforcement decision-making and policing practices, including arrest and control situations. Confirmation bias is the tendency to favor information that confirms existing beliefs while ignoring contradictory facts. [1] Understanding and reducing these biases is important to have the best approaches to policing while ensuring equity and trustworthiness between law enforcement and their communities.
Cognitive biases not only skew individual judgments but also pervade organizational culture, influencing policies and procedures in ways that can have far-reaching consequences. [2] The Texas Department of Public Safety (Texas DPS) has been a leader in confronting such issues and serves as a model for other law enforcement agencies nationwide to follow.
The impact of confirmation bias on policing
How do cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias, compromise policing practices? As an example, officers investigating a crime might give undue weight to evidence that supports their initial suspicions rather than looking at a case objectively and giving equal weight to all collected evidence. This can lead to wrongful arrests and convictions. [1] In the high-profile “Central Park Five” case in 1989, confirmation bias played a critical role. NYPD detectives focused on confessions coerced under pressure, ignoring contradictory evidence that eventually exonerated the accused. [3]
Another notable example was the Centennial Olympic Park case involving Richard Jewell. Atlanta police detectives wrongly accused the security officer of the 1996 bombing. They focused on Jewell based on initial assumptions, ignoring evidence that did not fit the facts of the case. This misdirection not only delayed the capture of the actual suspect but also caused significant personal and professional harm to Jewell.
Cognitive biases, particularly confirmation bias, impact not only high-profile cases but everyday policing as well. An officer’s preconceptions about a person based on appearance or actions influence enforcement activities such as traffic stops, searches and interrogations. Officers know all too well to base these enforcement activities on the reasonable suspicion standard when detaining a suspect. This standard requires that they rely on specific and articulable facts indicating criminal activity rather than preconceptions about a person based on appearance or actions. When officers go beyond the reasonableness standard, they are trained to have concrete facts or evidence that would lead a reasonable person to believe that a crime has been, is being or will be committed. Despite their training, officers are susceptible to human factors such as cognitive biases. [1]
Cognitive biases that result in policing missteps can lead to courts overturning prosecutions.
How people process information is where the psychological underpinnings of confirmation bias lie. People dealing with complex and unclear situations often look for evidence that validates their beliefs and assumptions. [1] This is particularly true in high-pressure situations like those encountered by law enforcement. In police work, time is often not a luxury officers have when it comes to decision-making. As a result, sometimes, especially in investigative work, officers can erroneously draw a conclusion on a case because they give more weight to what their “gut” is telling them rather than being open to other theories or objectively reviewing evidence.
Cognitive biases that result in policing missteps can lead to courts overturning prosecutions. [4] Officers might pursue incorrect leads, arresting and prosecuting the wrong suspect(s), which wastes time and resources, not to mention the misadministration of justice. Studies show confirmation bias can divert attention from the actual suspects, delaying justice and increasing investigative costs. [4-6] Implementing decision-making models that promote evidence-based reviews can mitigate these biases, ensuring more accurate and fair policing. [7]
The decision to arrest someone is arguably the most consequential moment in the criminal justice process. [8] Arresting and controlling suspects is frequently analyzed by critics, media, policymakers and the police themselves. [9] Cognitive biases have an impact not only on everyday police work but also on the decision-making and tactics strategies employed while making arrests and controlling suspects. If officers are affected by confirmation bias, for example, they might be more prone to use unreasonable force and less likely to de-escalate because of presupposition. [10] This can lead to excessive use of force, infringement of civil rights and increased community tensions.
How Texas DPS is leading the charge
Bias in policing practices can erode public trust, particularly within minority communities. Biased behaviors reinforce negative stereotypes and perpetuate tensions between law enforcement and the communities they serve. [11] Addressing confirmation bias is crucial for fostering equitable policing practices and rebuilding trust. Engaging community members in dialogue and feedback can help identify and mitigate biases, promoting transparency and accountability. [12]
Police-community relations are complex and fragile. Some law enforcement agencies have communities with memorable marks from historical racial profiling acts and discriminatory practices. For example, some critics often refer to the NYPD’s “stop and frisk” policy as “racial profiling” because officers in certain boroughs mainly concentrated on Blacks and Latinos, which led to mistrust within those communities. Research shows that if communities see or experience unfair or biased policing practices, their level of cooperation with investigations or other police initiatives decreases, making it difficult for police officers to solve crimes and maintain public safety. [11] Ultimately, these biases cause the disproportionate targeting of minority communities, which worsens the already strained relationship between those community members and the police. [3,6]
Regular bias awareness training and community engagement initiatives have helped Texas DPS build trust and improve community relations.
Texas DPS has implemented several initiatives to address confirmation bias. The department’s comprehensive training programs, from basic recruit training to ongoing professional development, emphasize cognitive debiasing and critical thinking, which in turn equips troopers with the skills to evaluate evidence objectively. Scenario-based training, particularly those taught by arrest and control staff, simulates real-life situations, allowing troopers to practice and improve their decision-making processes. This training uses a student-centered feedback model that allows the students to reflect on their training. This reflection focuses on the behaviors of a subject versus their specific characteristics, resulting in better decision-making.
The leadership at Texas DPS is committed to fostering a culture of accountability and transparency and has included training requirements in the use of force, de-escalation and control tactics for all commissioned officers. Regular bias awareness training and community engagement initiatives have helped Texas DPS build trust and improve community relations throughout the state, especially in the border cities and dense urban areas. Texas DPS has also integrated technologies, including body cameras and digital evidence management systems, to support unbiased policing practices. Training staff reinforce these approaches during basic academy and in-service training.
Mitigation strategies
These strategies can help mitigate cognitive biases in policing practices:
- Training programs: Targeted training programs focusing on cognitive debiasing and critical thinking can significantly reduce biases. Scenario-based training encourages officers to consider alternative hypotheses and reflect on their decision-making processes. [6]
- Structured decision-making models: Implementing models such as blind verification processes can help ensure objective evidence evaluation. These models promote rigorous evidence review, reducing the risk of bias-driven errors. [5] In blind verification, one officer collects the evidence while another, unaware of the case details, reviews it.
- Organizational culture: Regular bias awareness training and community engagement can foster long-term cultural changes, improving policing practices and community relations. [2]
- Technological solutions: Integrating technology into evidence management can reduce human error and bias. Automated systems can ensure that evidence is handled and interpreted objectively, further supporting unbiased investigative processes. [13]
- Policy rigor: Strong policies are necessary to advance changes in policing practices. Policies should require regular training on cognitive biases and debiasing interventions and establish clear protocols for critical areas like arrest and control procedures, evidence handling and transparency in investigative processes. Policies should also include provisions for regular audits and reviews to ensure compliance and effectiveness.
- Community policing models: Adopting models that engage communities and make them partners in policy-making, use-of-force reviews and other support mechanisms can help reduce cognitive biases. [12] Such models concentrate on establishing connections with community members, some of whom might be experts in areas that can help improve operational efficacy and bridge police-community relationship gaps.
- Case study analysis: Implementing case study analyses in training programs can provide practical insights into the effects of confirmation bias. This reflective practice encourages continuous improvement and adaptation of best practices in law enforcement. From a training perspective, studies show reflection works best after scenario-based training, particularly during arrest and control tactics training. [8-10]
- Feedback mechanisms: Establishing robust feedback mechanisms within law enforcement agencies can help identify and address confirmation bias. [12] Regular performance reviews, peer evaluations and community feedback sessions can highlight areas where bias may be affecting decision-making.
Conclusion
To guarantee the fair administration of justice for everyone, police leaders must face the issue of cognitive biases in policing practices. Law enforcement agencies can mitigate cognitive biases by promoting debiasing interventions through training, decision-making frameworks and accountability. Such methodologies advance policing practices and restore public confidence.
In Texas, DPS sets the example of being at the forefront of cognitive bias mitigation. The department achieves this through robust and rigorous training of everyone from recruits to command staff. The department’s arrest and control tactics staff uses data-driven, evidence-based processes to develop curricula that promote objective decision-making, arguably the most critical component in all policing areas.
Achieving fair and impartial policing comes with numerous complexities. Law enforcement agencies must continuously work on training and education, strengthening policies and building community partnerships. These approaches create a climate conducive to objective and just policing practices. One area susceptible to cognitive biases is arrest and control tactics. Reducing cognitive biases, specifically confirmation bias, when making arrests helps prevent officers from using unreasonable force and builds community trust.
Finally, law enforcement leaders might find utility in partnering with academic institutions and research organizations. These entities might offer useful insights into the effectiveness of various debiasing strategies. Some major metropolitan agencies, like the New York City and Los Angeles police departments, have internal teams with expertise in various academic fields that research best practices in policing and provide recommendations to command staff to improve policies and operations. Continuous research and adaptation of new methodologies will ensure policing practices evolve to meet society’s changing needs. Building a culture of transparency, accountability and continuous learning for officers is vital for long-term organizational success.
References
1. Dror IE. Cognitive and human factors in expert decision making: Six fallacies and the eight sources of bias. Analytical Chemistry. 2020.
2. Glaser J. Disrupting the effects of implicit bias: The case of discretion & policing. Dædalus. 2024.
3. Robbennolt JK. Confirmation bias: A barrier to community policing. Journal of Community Safety and Well-Being. 2021.
4. Hill C, Memon A, McGeorge P. The role of confirmation bias in suspect interviews: A systematic evaluation. Legal and Criminological Psychology. 2010.
5. O’Donohue W, Cirlugea O. Controlling for confirmation bias in child sexual abuse interviews. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 2021.
6. Rossmo K, Pollock J. Confirmation bias and other systemic causes of wrongful convictions: A sentinel events perspective. Northeastern University Law Review. 2019.
7. Fahsing I, Rachlew A, May L. Have you considered the opposite? A debiasing strategy for judgment in criminal investigation. The Police Journal. 2021.
8. Huff J. Understanding police decisions to arrest: The impact of situational, officer, and neighborhood characteristics on police discretion. Journal of Criminal Justice. 2021.
9. Stoughton SW. Policing facts. Tulane Law Review. 2014.
10. Taylor PL. Dispatch priming and the police decision to use deadly force. Police Quarterly. 2019.
11. Chanin J, Welsh M, Nurge D. Traffic enforcement through the lens of race: A sequential analysis of post-stop outcomes in San Diego, California. Criminal Justice Policy Review. 2018.
12. Staller MS, Zaiser B, Koerner S. The problem of entanglement: Biases and fallacies in police conflict management. International Journal of Police Science & Management. 2021.
13. Powell MB, Hughes-Scholes CH, Sharman SJ. Skill in interviewing reduces confirmation bias. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling. 2012.
About the authors
Richard O. “Rich” Segovia, Ph.D., Ed.D., has dedicated decades to law enforcement at the local and state levels. His career has spanned various areas, including patrol operations, investigations, training and other specialized assignments. In addition, Segovia served in the United States Coast Guard during the Gulf War era and is a disabled veteran. Today he serves at the Texas Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General. Segovia is a certified California and Texas law enforcement instructor and contributes to the academic community as an adjunct professor/qualitative dissertation chair with Liberty University and an academic evaluator with Western Governors University. He holds multiple degrees, including an MBA, Ed.D. and Ph.D., and is the author of “Mastering Qualitative Research: Your Concise and Comprehensive Blueprint,” a book on conducting qualitative research. Scholarly journals and trade magazines have also published Segovia’s work, reflecting his commitment to continuous learning and sharing knowledge.
Brian Sunderman is a lieutenant with the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS). His career with DPS has encompassed numerous assignments, including border operations, violent crimes task forces, capitol patrol, medical support and training. Today Sunderman serves as the program coordinator for the Arrest and Control Tactics Unit, where he serves as the Training Operations Division’s expert and lead instructor in use of force, de-escalation, intermediate weapon use and control tactics. Sunderman also advises the Major Force Review Board, reviews and advises the Highway Patrol Use of Force Committee, and is a member of the equipment and tactics research work group. He served as a medic in the United States Army during Operation Enduring Freedom until 2017. He supported missions in Honduras and Japan and competed in the Army’s Best Warrior competitions. He obtained his bachelor’s and master’s degrees in homeland security from the American Military University.