The policing profession has undergone what many have termed a “crisis of legitimacy” over the past few years.1 Although racial tensions are not new to U.S. policing, the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, brought allegations of racial bias back to the forefront of the conversation about police legitimacy.2 Relatedly, around the same time, the law enforcement community began to pay more attention to implicit bias, particularly the notion that officers might not display explicit discrimination, but their behavior, judgments, and decisions can still be influenced by biases.3 Given the research confirming that implicit biases exist in people across many professions, it is highly likely that police officers also have implicit biases.4 It is even possible that police officers may experience greater implicit bias against particular groups given their exposure to those groups in fraught situations. The possibility of the perception of threat—influenced by bias—instead of actual threat driving police behavior is a major social concern. Many police departments are implementing implicit bias training in an attempt to reduce this risk.
A major problem, however, is that no research exists on the effectiveness of implicit bias training for police. Nor has research investigated different methods of training or investigated how long any training effects last. Well-known social justice scholar Phillip Atiba Goff (the president of the Center for Policing Equity) has speculated that any effects of implicit bias training are likely to be short lived, especially if the officers do not “buy into” the training. Some have suggested that this may be more likely when implicit bias training is led by academics with no firsthand experience in policing.5 Some even suggest that implicit bias training may have the unintended effect of increasing bias by “normalizing” it.6 This possibility should be of considerable concern to police leaders as they decide how to roll out implicit bias training.
The predominant modality for teaching officers about implicit bias is the traditional classroom-based training format, in which officers are presented with an informative lecture on the science of bias. The goal of the project discussed herein was to develop and test a novel method—simulation-based training, in which officers are presented with multiple scenarios in which the suspect demographics are unrelated to the outcome. The intent was to “counter condition” officers’ implicit associations that affect decision-making, resulting in the training called Counter Bias Training Simulation (CBTsim).
Method
CBTsim was developed based on a solid foundation of experimental research on the science of bias and police use of force conducted at the Washington State University (WSU) Simulated Hazardous Operational Tasks (SHOT) laboratory. This research pioneered the use of simulation to investigate officer motivations to employ force, including the impact of bias (based on factors such as race, ethnicity, gender, socioeconomic status, mental illness, etc.). Custom scenarios were developed for use in the SHOT laboratory to better investigate the impact of a variety of suspect and situational level variables on police decision-making. These scenarios were based on 30 years of collated data on officer-involved shootings, gathered from the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) data, and the FBI’s Deadly Mix data on interviews of surviving officers and suspects from officer-involved shootings. The scenarios include vehicle stops, domestic disturbances, investigations of suspicious persons and circumstances, and robberies in progress. Using these scenarios, hundreds of participants in the SHOT lab have been tested to understand the impact of bias on decisions to shoot and on the decision-making process leading up to that point (including verbal de-escalation). This method appears to be a reliable method for investigating bias and has been published in academic and practitioner journals multiple times.7
From this research foundation, CBTsim was developed via an internally awarded grant from the WSU Office of Commercialization, which specializes in transitioning research to practice. This funding was used to purchase a portable use-of-force simulator, enabling the researchers to take the training platform to police agencies around the United States. A training curriculum was then developed, including learning objectives, a trainee lesson plan, evaluation criteria, and an instructor guide. Finally, marketing materials to promote CBTsim were developed.
Following the development of CBTsim, a two-part beta test of the training was conducted. The first part was to establish training feasibility and gather subjective feedback from officers to modify and refine the training; this test involved 19 trainees. The second was to test the evaluation rubric developed and involved 8 trainees.
Results
The result of the development phase was a complete training program (CBTsim), which is a portable scenario-based training platform designed to reveal and overcome biases in police use of force. The goal of the training is for trainees to respond based on the objective level of threat and not to cue off civilian characteristics (e.g., age, race, ethnicity, socio-economic status). CBTsim is the first implicit bias program that uses force-option simulation as a vehicle for learning that has practical implications for how police interact with civilians.
Training Platform
The simulation platform used in CBTsim is a Cubic Defense model, with custom scenarios designed at WSU. These unique scenarios were carefully designed to reflect the true dynamics of use-of-force confrontations, as determined from decades of scientific data about officer-involved shootings. They are authentic examples of how these tense, uncertain, and rapidly unfolding events develop in real life. These scenarios mix highly realistic situations with precise experimental control. Scenarios include domestic disturbances, disputes at a convenience store, investigations of suspicious persons and circumstances, and vehicle stops. Trainees respond to scenarios armed with a training-modified Glock 22 that allows precise measurement of shot placement and reaction time to shoot, in addition to shooting errors (i.e., shooting unarmed suspects, innocent bystanders, or failing to shoot armed suspects).
Training Curriculum
Within the CBTsim program, racial and other biases that exist subconsciously among trainees can be brought to the surface and addressed before they become factors in life-or-death field encounters.
Training Objectives
The terminal learning objective of CBTsim is that trainees will make force decisions based only on objective threat cues and not be biased by civilian characteristics. The enabling learning objectives are
1. through repeated exposure to scenarios in which civilian characteristics are not predictably related to scenario outcome, stereotyping will be counter-conditioned; and
2. through post-scenario debriefing, trainees will become aware of their implicit biases, which will reduce the likelihood of biased decision-making.
Training Procedure
A CBTsim session lasts for four hours, during which trainees interact with and respond to high-definition scenarios, which are projected life-sized from a portable simulator, while their peers observe. Each trainee experiences a different set of scenarios. Immediately following each one, the scenario is “played back” to the group, showing the participant’s data (e.g., reaction times, shot placement, any shooting errors). Then, the trainee engages in a self-reflective debrief of what happened, identifying the decision points of his or her actions, his or her impressions of the civilian, and the factors he or she believed influenced his or her responses. The following guiding questions are used to help elicit self-reflection from trainees:
1. What was the first thing you noticed about the scenario?
2. What particular things did you cue off in the scenario?
3. Did anything concern you about the scenario?
4. What were your impressions of the suspect?
5. At what point did you recognize that the scenario was going to be deadly or non-deadly?
6. Can you walk me through your decision-making process?
7. In hindsight, would you have done anything differently?
Then each peer trainee is asked to offer insights. The aim is to “tease out” for discussion any points at which the variables of race, ethnicity, appearance, or other characteristics may have influenced a trainee’s decisions (rather than an awareness of true danger cues being the guide) and facilitate an “aha moment” within a trainee that can produce a meaningful change in focus and reaction.
Evaluation Procedure
The evaluation criteria are based on a four-part rubric that assesses
1. accuracy in deadly force judgement and decision-making,
2. engagement with scenarios,
3. quality of self-reflection during debrief, and
4. quality of peer feedback during debrief.
For each of these items trainees are scored “not achieved” (<70 percent), “achieved” (71–80 percent), “superior” (81–90 percent), or “exemplary” (91–100 percent). Trainees are required to earn a minimum of “achieved” in three of the four items to pass the course.
Training Beta Testing
The goal of the first beta test was to pilot test the training and gather feedback on perceived effectiveness, as well as recommendations for improving the training. Nineteen participants (all sworn police officers) from two separate small West Coast departments engaged in CBTsim. The training was implemented without trainee evaluation, as the goal was to assess feasibility. (Could the training be conducted in the time estimated? Would the training be well received?) Four CBTsim sessions were held across two days (two four-hour sessions per day). All sessions were successfully completed within the time allowed. Following training, participants were asked to complete a brief online survey rating the effectiveness of the training, as well as offering insights into improving it.
All participants believed the training to be beneficial for them (66.67 percent rated it somewhat beneficial, 33.33 percent, highly beneficial—on a 3-point Likert scale from “not beneficial” to “highly beneficial”). All believed the training to be beneficial for law enforcement generally (33.33 percent found it “somewhat beneficial,” 66.66 percent rated it “highly beneficial”). Analysis of the qualitative feedback showed the strengths to be (1) group and facilitator-led discussion after each scenario, (2) discussion periods following scenarios, (3) simulated stress benefiting overall performance, and (4) playback of scenarios to talk through objective threat cues from suspects. Participants from the first beta test recommended CBTsim (1) expand weapons platform to apply CBTsim to less-lethal force (e.g., Taser, pepper spray) outcomes; (2) make it clearer what the expectations are for the training; and (3) incorporate team dynamics and partner-based approaches in addition to single-officer responses.
Following the first round of beta testing, the training materials were modified to make training expectations clearer. The weapons and team recommendations were shelved due to current training goals. A second round of beta testing was then conducted using the trainee evaluation component. Eight trainees participated; seven were sworn officers from Pacific Northwestern municipal and county law enforcement agencies, and one was the local chapter president of the NAACP—an African American community leader. From this round of testing, the evaluation rubric was found to be straightforward and feasible to use in real time due to the scenario playback following each trainee response. Performance scores within this round ranged from 85 percent to 100 percent with an average score achieved of 95 percent.
Looking Ahead
CBTsim was successfully developed and beta tested. The next phase of testing is now underway, via a randomized control trial (RCT) to evaluate the comparative effectiveness of CBTsim and traditional classroom-based implicit bias training on improving fairness in officer decision-making and enhancing the outcomes of community-police encounters. In addition to evaluating whether implicit bias training is effective at promoting fairness in officer decision-making (measured via body-worn camera footage scored with custom metrics) and increasing public trust in police (measured by community member complaints and arrestee surveys), the RCT will also answer the questions of which training modality is more effective (simulation vs. classroom-based), and how long the training effects last.
One of the key dependent variables of interest in the ongoing RCT is public perceptions of police legitimacy. As such, the results of this research will also make a meaningful contribution to the research literature on ways to promote and improve public perceptions of police legitimacy. This is a critical concern that has been identified as a top priority for the policing profession, particularly in the current (post-Ferguson) climate. One of the key lessons for improving public perceptions of law enforcement is that if community members believe their police are legitimate, they are more likely to cooperate with policing efforts.8 Procedural justice—the idea that people are equally or more concerned about the means with which police officers reach outcomes than they are with the outcomes themselves—is based on the principles of respect, legitimacy, transparency, and fairness.9
IACP Resources■ Unbiased Policing Model Policy and Paper ■ “Virtual Reality Training: New Technology Opens Up New Training Opportunities for Law Enforcement” (article) |
Community members are more likely to believe their police are legitimate if they feel officers are fair, unbiased, interested in community members’ well-being, treat them with respect and dignity, allow them a voice, and do not abuse authority. In addition, community members who trust the police are less likely to challenge police action or otherwise obstruct law enforcement (increasing officer safety and reducing costs to departments). Despite this knowledge, empirical evidence on the training’s impact for promoting police legitimacy is extremely limited. The ongoing RCT could provide valuable and timely information regarding ways to promote public perceptions of police legitimacy through training. It is ultimately hoped that the results of this research will guide best practices for police adoption of implicit bias training and contribute to a culture of safety and fairness within the law enforcement profession. 🛡
Notes:
1 Lois James, Lorie Fridell, and Frank Straub Jr., “Implicit Bias versus the ‘Ferguson Effect’: Psychosocial Factors Impacting Officers’ Decisions to Use Deadly Force,” Police Chief 83 (February 2016): 44–51.
2 Michael D. White and Henry F. Fradella, Stop and Frisk: The Use and Abuse of a Controversial Policing Tactic (New York, NY: New York University Press, 2016); William Terrill, “Deadly Force: To Shoot or Not to Shoot,” Criminology & Public Policy 15, no. 2 (February 2016): 491–496.
3 Nilanjana Dasgupta, “Implicit Attitudes and Beliefs Adapt to Situations: A Decade of Research on the Malleability of Implicit Prejudice, Stereotypes, and the Self-Concept,” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 47 (December 2013): 233–279.
4 Anthony Greenwald, Mahzarin Banaji, and Brain Nosek, “Statistically Small Effects of the Implicit Association Test Can Have Societally Large Effects,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 108, no. 4 (November 2014): 553–561.
5 Elizabeth Chuck, “Can ‘Implicit Bias’ Training Stop Police Officers From Acting on Hidden Prejudice?” NBC News, October 1, 2016.
6 Martin Kaste, “Police Officers Debate Effectiveness of Anti-Bias Training,” NPR, April 6, 2015; Michelle M. Duguid and Melissa C. Thomas-Hunt, “Condoning Stereotyping? How Awareness of Stereotyping Prevalence Impacts Expression of Stereotypes,” Journal of Applied Psychology 100, no. 2 (2015): 343–359.
7 See, for example, Lois James, Bryan J. Vila, and Kenn Daratha, “The Influence of Suspect Race and Ethnicity on Decisions to Shoot in a Deadly Force Judgment and Decision-Making Simulator,” Experimental Criminology 9, no. 2 (2013): 189–212; Lois James, Stephen M. James, and Bryan J. Vila, “The Reverse Racism Effect: Are Cops More Hesitant to Shoot Black Than White Suspects?” Criminology and Public Policy 15 (January 2016): 457–47; Lois James, Stephen M. James, and Bryan J. Vila, “Testing the Impact of Citizen Characteristics and Demeanor on Police Officer Behavior in Potentially Violent Encounters,” Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 41, no. 1 (August 2017): 24–40.
8 Jason Sunshine and Tom R. Tyler, “The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing,” Law & Society Review 37, no. 3 (September 2003): 513–548.
9 Laura L. Kunard, Procedural Justice for Law Enforcement Agencies (Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing, 2011).
Please cite as
Lois James and Stephen M. James, “The Development and Testing of a Simulation-Based Implicit Bias Training Platform,” Police Chief 86, no. 11 (November 2019): 36–41.
