Bias among Law Enforcement Officers

Survey Research Data

The research question for this survey is: What are the psychological biases and tendencies apparent within the law enforcement community that influence their decisions to engage in more aggressive behavior towards minorities, defined as arrest related deaths or death while in police custody, and less aggressive behavior towards those who are white or of similar race.

The hypothesis is: Social dominance theory along with cognitive and behavior biases adversely contribute to police behavior towards minorities.

The data table to be used is the arrest-related deaths program which is a national census of individuals who have died in the process of an arrest. The date also provides information related to those who have died in the custody of state and local law enforcement. The link to this data is: https://bjs.ojp.gov/data-collection/arrest-related-deaths-ard#methodology-0.

The data tables show that from 2003 to 2009 a total of 4813 deaths were reported to the program. Of reported arrest-related deaths, 61% (2,931) were classified as homicides by law enforcement personnel, 11% (541) were suicides, 11% (525) were due to intoxication, 6% (272) were accidental injuries, and 5% (244) were attributed to natural causes.

Among reported arrest-related deaths, 42% of persons were white, 32% were black, and 20% were Hispanic.

Survey research is typically conducted by creating a survey that can be statistically computed using a Likert scale, with 0 representing one extreme and a higher number such as 5 representing the opposite extreme. Survey participants will respond to the survey statements by selecting the numerical value that best represents their answer, with 0 usually representing a negative response, such as “Not at all,” and 5 representing an affirmative response, such as “Always.” This type of data collection method is helpful for obtaining responses from a wide sample, whereas interview methodologies usually require that the researcher focus on a small sample of participants for practical purposes. The survey should be piloted, however, to ensure that the statements can retrieve the kind of answers that will help the researcher to address the hypothesis.

The survey used above was conducted by using self-reporting agencies “that experienced one or more deaths to estimate the number of arrest-related deaths in a particular calendar year” (Banks et al, 2015). For this research, which focuses on the psychological tendencies and biases of law enforcement, the Harvard Implicit Bias test can be used to obtain data from law enforcement officers regarding their bias with respect to racial and ethnic stereotypes of the public. This is an important way to approach the hypothesis, because James (2018) has found that “research on police officers has found that they tend to associate African Americans with threat” (p. 30).  Moragn et al. (2009) further state that it is important to understand where bias originates in order to address the underlying issue of arrest-related-deaths.

In survey research related to criminal justice, self-reported data is typically the most common methodology employed; however, there are limitations here due to the fact that not all agencies might accurately report the data, which means that the data itself could be faulty. That is why some data collection survey methods are preferred over others. For instance, a focus group survey is conducted with the participants all gathered together; the survey is provided following a presentation, and the participants complete the survey while in attendance. This can eliminate the risk of underreporting. Electronic surveys do not mitigate this risk, as there are some who may not respond. Telephone surveys can be more difficult to conduct because of the fact that few people want to take surveys over the phone. In-person surveys require scheduling and time conflicts can play a part in preventing a suitable sample from being achieved. The focus group survey method thus lends itself as the best data collection survey method for this selected topic, as the information can be presented to all participants at once and the data obtained in the same outing.

The pros of the method utilized in relationship to the topic and the research process are that it enables the researcher to assemble the participants in one setting at one pre-designated time so that they may all be addressed at once instead of having to arrange multiple times for different participants or risk losing data due to underreporting. The con of this method is that it does not lend itself to a very large sample size. However, it does also provide an opportunity for qualitative data to be obtained through direct observation, discussion, and interviewing, if deeper more complex data is warranted for this research.

In any data collection method there are going to be strengths and weaknesses. The strength of this method is that it will allow the researcher to obtain data that can be quantified using the Likert scale, which will then be used for quantitative analysis. At the same time, interview questions or observations made of the group through direct observation can lead to a qualitative type of analysis that could provide deeper insight into the research topic. The combination of data methods creates a fuller and often more complex picture of the problem that can further future research.

A focus group is good because it provides room for discussion and a place where questions may be asked and answered prior to the survey. For the purpose of understanding implicit bias within law enforcement, the participants will be asked to take the Harvard Implicit Bias test that can be taken online. This will provide the research will suitable data for addressing the hypothesis. The challenge will be obtaining enough law enforcement officers to make the sample size suitable so that it can yield generalizeable results that might be able to say something about the wider population of law enforcement officers. Thus, the major con of conducting a focus group is that it requires appealing to participants and getting them to want to take part in the survey. Some incentive may have to be offered them for this purpose, or else the researcher risks not having anyone show up to be part of the survey.