我们对他们?警务工作中的认知扭曲问题

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Scott E. Wolfe, Kyle Mclean, G. Alpert, Jeff Rojek
{"title":"我们对他们?警务工作中的认知扭曲问题","authors":"Scott E. Wolfe, Kyle Mclean, G. Alpert, Jeff Rojek","doi":"10.1177/10986111241234310","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on cognitive distortions offers insight on why we continue to face reform challenges regarding police use of force- and citizen interaction-related outcomes. We used two studies of police officers to determine the extent to which one cognitive distortion—dichotomous thinking—was associated with problematic orientations about use of force and citizen interactions. In Study 1, we found that dichotomous thinking was associated with weaker support for de-escalation, procedural justice, and maintaining self-control during hypothetical citizen interactions. Dichotomous thinking also was associated with more support for force-related misconduct. Study 2 showed that officers who engaged in dichotomous thinking were more likely to perceive an immediate and serious threat from watching suspects in body-worn camera videos. Also, they were more likely to believe suspects had greater ability, opportunity, and intent to cause harm. We discuss the practical implications of these findings for policing and police reform.","PeriodicalId":47610,"journal":{"name":"Police Quarterly","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Us Versus Them? The Problem of Cognitive Distortions in Policing\",\"authors\":\"Scott E. Wolfe, Kyle Mclean, G. Alpert, Jeff Rojek\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/10986111241234310\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The literature on cognitive distortions offers insight on why we continue to face reform challenges regarding police use of force- and citizen interaction-related outcomes. We used two studies of police officers to determine the extent to which one cognitive distortion—dichotomous thinking—was associated with problematic orientations about use of force and citizen interactions. In Study 1, we found that dichotomous thinking was associated with weaker support for de-escalation, procedural justice, and maintaining self-control during hypothetical citizen interactions. Dichotomous thinking also was associated with more support for force-related misconduct. Study 2 showed that officers who engaged in dichotomous thinking were more likely to perceive an immediate and serious threat from watching suspects in body-worn camera videos. Also, they were more likely to believe suspects had greater ability, opportunity, and intent to cause harm. We discuss the practical implications of these findings for policing and police reform.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47610,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Police Quarterly\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Police Quarterly\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111241234310\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Police Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111241234310","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

关于认知扭曲的文献为我们提供了洞察力,让我们了解为什么在警察使用武力和与公民互动相关的结果方面,我们仍然面临改革的挑战。我们利用对警察的两项研究来确定一种认知扭曲--二分法思维--在多大程度上与使用武力和与公民互动的问题导向相关。在研究 1 中,我们发现二分法思维与在假设的公民互动过程中支持降级、程序正义和保持自我控制的程度较弱有关。二分法思维还与更多支持与武力有关的不当行为有关。研究 2 表明,采用二分法思维的警官更有可能通过观察随身摄像头视频中的犯罪嫌疑人而感受到直接和严重的威胁。同时,他们也更有可能认为嫌疑人有更大的能力、机会和意图造成伤害。我们将讨论这些发现对警务工作和警察改革的实际意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Us Versus Them? The Problem of Cognitive Distortions in Policing
The literature on cognitive distortions offers insight on why we continue to face reform challenges regarding police use of force- and citizen interaction-related outcomes. We used two studies of police officers to determine the extent to which one cognitive distortion—dichotomous thinking—was associated with problematic orientations about use of force and citizen interactions. In Study 1, we found that dichotomous thinking was associated with weaker support for de-escalation, procedural justice, and maintaining self-control during hypothetical citizen interactions. Dichotomous thinking also was associated with more support for force-related misconduct. Study 2 showed that officers who engaged in dichotomous thinking were more likely to perceive an immediate and serious threat from watching suspects in body-worn camera videos. Also, they were more likely to believe suspects had greater ability, opportunity, and intent to cause harm. We discuss the practical implications of these findings for policing and police reform.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Police Quarterly
Police Quarterly CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
5.90
自引率
6.50%
发文量
22
期刊介绍: Police Quarterly is a scholarly, peer-reviewed journal that publishes theoretical contributions, empirical studies, essays, comparative analyses, critiques, innovative program descriptions, debates, and book reviews on issues related to policing.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信