by José Gutierrez, Police Officer, Oakland, CA Police Department and Bruce Wydick, Professor of Economics, University of San Francisco
Stephon Clark. Michael Brown. Freddie Gray. Alton Sterling. Keith Scott. Compliments of the smart phone, YouTube, and the evening news, Americans have witnessed episode after gut-wrenching, heart-breaking episode of close-range police shootings of black men. Many police officers have also died in these confrontations. We all grieve over these incidents, for lives lost, for families left behind. Is there anything we do as a society to prevent such apparently needless deaths?
There is pattern to these shootings: virtually all of them occur at police stops. What is it about the nature of police stops involving young black men that too often results in the quick escalation to a shooting? As a police officer and an economics professor, we believe that an understanding of how police stops work can offer some insight into the underlying factors that lead to police shootings. And by understanding police stops within a framework of behavioral economics and social science, we hope to contribute to a discourse on how violence at police stops can be mitigated.
First, some background: In Graham vs. Connor, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on conditions that justify the reasonable use of force by a police officer during a confrontation with a suspect. Graham vs. Connor allows for the use of force based on the crime associated with the suspect, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the public, and if a suspect is actively resisting arrest.
There are a clear set of priorities for police officers at every police stop. The first of these is safety—the safety of the nearby public, the suspect, and the officer. The second is that the officer treat the suspect with respect, dignity, and some measure of trust. Approaching a suspect in a spirit of respect, dignity, and trust may lessen the probability that a peaceful confrontation escalates into a violent one. The third, however—trust—is potentially much more costly in terms of safety. Granting too much trust to a suspect, for example, by not insisting that hands be placed on a steering wheel or not searching for hidden weapons, may reduce the probability of violence (by reducing a subject’s irritation toward the arresting officer). But it also may increase the probability of violence if a suspect intends to harm the officer either as a means to escape or as an act of retaliation. A police officer, however, is unable to determine with certainty which behavior a given approach by the officer will provoke. In a matter of seconds (or less) an officer must base actions on judgments that are shaped through immediate observations of the suspect. In this regard, every time an officer confronts a member of the public in a police stop, he or she must act with extreme care.
Behavioral economists and game theorists use a standard set of games to try to understand different types of interaction. The trust game is one of the most common, and we can use it to better understand the exchange that takes place in police stops. In the experimental setting of a trust game, there are two players. The first player (the truster) is allocated some amount x of a resource (say, money), and then decides how much of x to pass on to the second player (the trustee). The fraction of x that is passed on to the trustee is typically tripled by the experimenter, and then that player decides how much of this total to return back to the first player. The trust game is interesting to researchers because clearly there are gains created by trust between the truster and the trustee. Both, for example could end up with 1.5x if the truster passes his whole allotment to the trustee who then responds by returning half of his 3x to the truster. The question is: Does the truster trust that the second player won’t burn him by abusing the trust conferred upon him?
Social scientists find the trust game fascinating because as this game has been repeatedly played in laboratory experiments, it violates what economists deem to be the “rational” solution, which is for the trustee to act in his selfish interest and keep everything entrusted to him by the truster. And following this logic, the truster shouldn’t give anything to the trustee in the first place, because he shouldn’t expect to get anything back.
Fortunately, the “rational” solution is violated repeatedly in virtually every experiment involving the trust game. Researchers have found over time that not only do trusters pass high fractions of their allotted x to trustees, but that in the vast majority of cases the trustees prove trustworthy, voluntarily sending back more to trusters than they gave away. In other words, trusting is risky, but being trusted often fosters trustworthy behavior.
So how does this help us with police stops? In a police stop the officer is the truster, and the suspect the trustee. We should consider now why a black person may respond differently than a white person during a police stop.
If you are a middle class white person, the data show that you probably have not been pulled over many times by the police, but when you have, it is likely that it is because you were doing something wrong. You rolled a stop sign. You were significantly over the speed limit. You were driving without brake lights. Because of this you have developed the (relative) perception of being treated fairly by police officers. In contrast, many African-Americans feel that they are often unfairly stopped by the police. The data bear this out. For example, using official data from Oakland police stops, Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt finds that blacks are far more likely to be stopped by the police than whites given equal circumstances. The best data show that perceptions of blacks are not inaccurate. Because of being illegitimately stopped so many times, black people feel mistrusted.
If you are a white person, imagine if the last time you were stopped by the police it was not the first time in the last three years, but the third time in the last year. Social science demonstrates that the difference in trustworthiness felt between whites and blacks will produce very different behavioral reactions: one that responds in kind to the trust that is granted, another that responds in kind to the trust that has been withheld.
Compounding the problem is the granting of respect and dignity. Like the conference of trust, social science continually shows that respect and the upholding of dignity are also reciprocated in social behavior. In her book, Dignity, Donna Hicks finds across a plethora of contexts that If one is respected, all else equal, one tends to respect. If one’s dignity is upheld by another, all else equal, one tends to reciprocate a conferral of dignity toward the first. Disrespect and degradation respond in kind, often even at the added cost to the one whose dignity was initially violated.
What then can law enforcement and the public learn from behavioral economics? There are several lessons that relate to the moment of confrontation during the police stop.
First, executing fairness in police stops will create an atmosphere of trust. That instantaneous reaction to physically resist during an arrest may often be the product of years of black people feeling mistrusted by law enforcement. If people are treated as untrustworthy, people are more likely to respond by being untrustworthy. It’s almost as if conferring mistrust cements an identify of untrustworthiness. Racial bias in the frequency of police stops must end.
Second, depending on the situation, trusting behavior toward a suspect in the course of arrest may create an unsafe situation for the officer, the surrounding public, and in turn even the suspect if it encourages resisting an arrest. But as much trust should given as is safely reasonable, given the particular circumstances of the stop.
Third, while displays of trust can be costly and unsafe in some circumstances, treating suspects with dignity and respect during a stop is something that can be done routinely. As departments create habits and patterns of conferring respect and dignity during police stops, even during difficult arrests, it builds a culture of trust between police and minority groups that is likely to be reciprocated during the critical moments in which police stops have quickly escalated into violence and police shootings.
Lastly, members of the public need to understand that police officers face some risk to their own lives during every stop, and that they pose a risk to their own lives by resisting arrest. The trust game works both ways: Treating an officer with trust, respect, and dignity will virtually always yield a better outcome for both parties than treating officers with disrespect, or especially any attempt to physically resist arrest. The media can help in this regard. Public service announcements, perhaps broadcast during television sporting events, that emphasize safe behavior for members of the public when interacting with police as well as the responsibilities of the police toward citizens could be immensely helpful in creating standards of behavior that reduce the potential for violence during police stops.
Police shootings are not isolated incidents; they are the product of dysfunctional relationship patterns between law enforcement and minority groups that need to be restored. Establishing new patterns within a framework of trust, respect, and human dignity is one important step in this process.
José Gutierrez is a pseudonym. Bruce Wydick is Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco. Follow AcrossTwoWorlds on Twitter @BruceWydick.
The Behavioral Economics of Police Stops
by José Gutierrez, Police Officer, Oakland, CA Police Department and Bruce Wydick, Professor of Economics, University of San Francisco
Stephon Clark. Michael Brown. Freddie Gray. Alton Sterling. Keith Scott. Compliments of the smart phone, YouTube, and the evening news, Americans have witnessed episode after gut-wrenching, heart-breaking episode of close-range police shootings of black men. Many police officers have also died in these confrontations. We all grieve over these incidents, for lives lost, for families left behind. Is there anything we do as a society to prevent such apparently needless deaths?
There is pattern to these shootings: virtually all of them occur at police stops. What is it about the nature of police stops involving young black men that too often results in the quick escalation to a shooting? As a police officer and an economics professor, we believe that an understanding of how police stops work can offer some insight into the underlying factors that lead to police shootings. And by understanding police stops within a framework of behavioral economics and social science, we hope to contribute to a discourse on how violence at police stops can be mitigated.
There are a clear set of priorities for police officers at every police stop. The first of these is safety—the safety of the nearby public, the suspect, and the officer. The second is that the officer treat the suspect with respect, dignity, and some measure of trust. Approaching a suspect in a spirit of respect, dignity, and trust may lessen the probability that a peaceful confrontation escalates into a violent one. The third, however—trust—is potentially much more costly in terms of safety. Granting too much trust to a suspect, for example, by not insisting that hands be placed on a steering wheel or not searching for hidden weapons, may reduce the probability of violence (by reducing a subject’s irritation toward the arresting officer). But it also may increase the probability of violence if a suspect intends to harm the officer either as a means to escape or as an act of retaliation. A police officer, however, is unable to determine with certainty which behavior a given approach by the officer will provoke. In a matter of seconds (or less) an officer must base actions on judgments that are shaped through immediate observations of the suspect. In this regard, every time an officer confronts a member of the public in a police stop, he or she must act with extreme care.
Behavioral economists and game theorists use a standard set of games to try to understand different types of interaction. The trust game is one of the most common, and we can use it to better understand the exchange that takes place in police stops. In the experimental setting of a trust game, there are two players. The first player (the truster) is allocated some amount x of a resource (say, money), and then decides how much of x to pass on to the second player (the trustee). The fraction of x that is passed on to the trustee is typically tripled by the experimenter, and then that player decides how much of this total to return back to the first player. The trust game is interesting to researchers because clearly there are gains created by trust between the truster and the trustee. Both, for example could end up with 1.5x if the truster passes his whole allotment to the trustee who then responds by returning half of his 3x to the truster. The question is: Does the truster trust that the second player won’t burn him by abusing the trust conferred upon him?
Social scientists find the trust game fascinating because as this game has been repeatedly played in laboratory experiments, it violates what economists deem to be the “rational” solution, which is for the trustee to act in his selfish interest and keep everything entrusted to him by the truster. And following this logic, the truster shouldn’t give anything to the trustee in the first place, because he shouldn’t expect to get anything back.
Fortunately, the “rational” solution is violated repeatedly in virtually every experiment involving the trust game. Researchers have found over time that not only do trusters pass high fractions of their allotted x to trustees, but that in the vast majority of cases the trustees prove trustworthy, voluntarily sending back more to trusters than they gave away. In other words, trusting is risky, but being trusted often fosters trustworthy behavior.
So how does this help us with police stops? In a police stop the officer is the truster, and the suspect the trustee. We should consider now why a black person may respond differently than a white person during a police stop.
If you are a middle class white person, the data show that you probably have not been pulled over many times by the police, but when you have, it is likely that it is because you were doing something wrong. You rolled a stop sign. You were significantly over the speed limit. You were driving without brake lights. Because of this you have developed the (relative) perception of being treated fairly by police officers. In contrast, many African-Americans feel that they are often unfairly stopped by the police. The data bear this out. For example, using official data from Oakland police stops, Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt finds that blacks are far more likely to be stopped by the police than whites given equal circumstances. The best data show that perceptions of blacks are not inaccurate. Because of being illegitimately stopped so many times, black people feel mistrusted.
If you are a white person, imagine if the last time you were stopped by the police it was not the first time in the last three years, but the third time in the last year. Social science demonstrates that the difference in trustworthiness felt between whites and blacks will produce very different behavioral reactions: one that responds in kind to the trust that is granted, another that responds in kind to the trust that has been withheld.
Compounding the problem is the granting of respect and dignity. Like the conference of trust, social science continually shows that respect and the upholding of dignity are also reciprocated in social behavior. In her book, Dignity, Donna Hicks finds across a plethora of contexts that If one is respected, all else equal, one tends to respect. If one’s dignity is upheld by another, all else equal, one tends to reciprocate a conferral of dignity toward the first. Disrespect and degradation respond in kind, often even at the added cost to the one whose dignity was initially violated.
What then can law enforcement and the public learn from behavioral economics? There are several lessons that relate to the moment of confrontation during the police stop.
First, executing fairness in police stops will create an atmosphere of trust. That instantaneous reaction to physically resist during an arrest may often be the product of years of black people feeling mistrusted by law enforcement. If people are treated as untrustworthy, people are more likely to respond by being untrustworthy. It’s almost as if conferring mistrust cements an identify of untrustworthiness. Racial bias in the frequency of police stops must end.
Second, depending on the situation, trusting behavior toward a suspect in the course of arrest may create an unsafe situation for the officer, the surrounding public, and in turn even the suspect if it encourages resisting an arrest. But as much trust should given as is safely reasonable, given the particular circumstances of the stop.
Third, while displays of trust can be costly and unsafe in some circumstances, treating suspects with dignity and respect during a stop is something that can be done routinely. As departments create habits and patterns of conferring respect and dignity during police stops, even during difficult arrests, it builds a culture of trust between police and minority groups that is likely to be reciprocated during the critical moments in which police stops have quickly escalated into violence and police shootings.
Lastly, members of the public need to understand that police officers face some risk to their own lives during every stop, and that they pose a risk to their own lives by resisting arrest. The trust game works both ways: Treating an officer with trust, respect, and dignity will virtually always yield a better outcome for both parties than treating officers with disrespect, or especially any attempt to physically resist arrest. The media can help in this regard. Public service announcements, perhaps broadcast during television sporting events, that emphasize safe behavior for members of the public when interacting with police as well as the responsibilities of the police toward citizens could be immensely helpful in creating standards of behavior that reduce the potential for violence during police stops.
Police shootings are not isolated incidents; they are the product of dysfunctional relationship patterns between law enforcement and minority groups that need to be restored. Establishing new patterns within a framework of trust, respect, and human dignity is one important step in this process.
José Gutierrez is a pseudonym. Bruce Wydick is Professor of Economics at the University of San Francisco. Follow AcrossTwoWorlds on Twitter @BruceWydick.