- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Russell Collins: Alleged ‘Excessive Force’ Incident a Case Study in Cognitive Bias
Picture this in your mind:
On a cool evening in late October, a man driving a crew-cab pickup with roll bars in the bed pulls into the parking lot of an upscale grocery store in Santa Barbara. The man exits his pickup and locks it, then walks quickly toward the sliding glass doorway of the store. From a few yards away, a policeman yells out, ordering the man to step back into the car. The cop is young and relatively new on the force.
He will report later that he had been trailing the pickup for some miles. It had been swerving erratically, he will claim, and he had tried to initiate a stop on the street near the entrance to the grocery store lot. Court and police records — which may have been available to the officer on his laptop at the time — show that the truck’s owner has a history of DUI-related charges, and is driving on a suspended license.
The man does not return to his car, but continues walking away. The officer steps forward and grabs his arm. According to reports issued the next day by police, the driver at this point breaks free, forcing the officer to grab, trip, strike and knee him several times around the face and body. A Taser is also used against the man.
Bystanders in the parking lot are startled enough to stop and watch. According to one of them interviewed later by a reporter, at some point in the struggle, the man shouts, “Why are you doing this?” The officer shouts several times, “Stop resisting arrest.” Other officers arrive, and the pickup owner is arrested.
Several hours later he is photographed with bruises and contusions on his face, several broken ribs and a broken nose. The man will make a statement after his release denying he resisted arrest. “I laid down like a lamb,” he said. The police have taken blood to test alcohol levels, though the man says he had consumed exactly one drink on the day of the encounter.
Now answer this: Are we looking at the use of excessive force here, or simply an unruly citizen being arrested with forceful but legal methods?
Since many Santa Barbarans are following the media accounts of the police vs. citizen dust-up in the Gelson’s Market parking lot last week, you may recognize the scenario as more or less what’s been in the media, including Noozhawk, about that incident. There are calls for an investigation, and the outcome is still very much up in the air.
It’s a pretty good story. It’s got a good guy, a bad guy and a cliffhanger ending. Depending on your view of these things, the bad guy is either the policeman or the pickup driver, and true justice hangs on the fate of an unreleased police video.
And in fact, the video has already been viewed by our police chief, who reports that the arrest was entirely legal and proper. Whew! Right? It depends on your views about this type of thing. One camp might think that the chief would never make those claims if the video didn’t support them. The other might imagine this is the first phase of a whitewash, which will probably include suppressing, destroying, doctoring or editing the video so the truth never comes to light. Or maybe you’re reserving judgment and still haven’t made up your mind.
You Want the Truth?
But here’s my bet. It won’t matter what the video shows. “Facts that challenge basic assumptions — and thereby threaten people’s livelihood and self-esteem — are simply not absorbed.” This is the overarching conclusion drawn by Nobel Laureate Daniel Kahneman in his new book, Thinking, Fast and Slow. While Kahneman is looking mainly at investing mistakes people make, his larger point is that our cognitive biases are far more likely to change our interpretations of events than events are to change our habitual way of seeing things. We see what we expect to see, in other words.
In fact, this is one of the big discoveries of the relatively new science of cognitive psychology. Your preconceptions about the arrest at Gelson’s will most likely dictate your understanding of the video (if you ever get to see it) rather than the reverse. You will view the video through the lens of your apriori opinion of the case, and guess what? It will be obvious that you were right all along! And even if (like me) you weren’t quite ready to make up your mind, well, after watching the film, you still won’t be able to.
The Just World Hypothesis, The Sinister Attribution Error and the Illusion of Unbounded Rationality
So, let’s do an experiment. Reflect back for a second on your own responses when you first heard about the Tony Denunzio case in the media, or read the little vignette at the top of this column. Notice how quickly you formed an opinion, at least a preliminary one, about what happened based on the limited information you were given. Why you did this is because human beings are compulsively opinionated, even though we almost never have enough information to make a completely rational decision. How you did this is a different story.
You did this with heuristic thinking, which just basically means that we have very good mental tricks for coming to good-enough decisions about things without spending too much time. That’s the good news: Heuristics allow us to evaluate situations quickly with minimal effort. The bad news is that they rely on all kinds of quick and dirty rules, or cognitive biases. These include our knee-jerk opinions about minorities, people with arrest records or authority figures like the police.
Psychologists have identified cognitive biases for just about everything, including cognitive biases (we adjust for the biases and rigidity in other people’s thinking, but fail to account for it in our own). Since all of our most damaging stereotypes are part of this collection of biases, it would be nice if we could erase them periodically and start from scratch. Unfortunately, most of them are kind of baked in by the time we reach adulthood. Plus, without a healthy set of heuristics and biases to get us through the day, we might be frozen with indecision, unable to even get out of bed.
Here are three fairly common cognitive biases that could affect your judgments about the pickup driver and the police officer.
People Get What They Deserve in Life — Right?
If you were a student at the University of Kentucky in 1965, you might have been invited to participate as an observer in a strange experiment conducted by a young professor named Melvin J. Lerner. If you accepted, you would have been asked to watch a film about a female student who, you were told, was the subject of a behavioral learning experiment. In the film, the girl repeatedly cries out as severe shocks are delivered each time she fails at the learning task. You would have then been queried about your attitudes toward the girl.
The experiment wasn’t about behavioral learning at all, of course (the girl was an actress). Lerner was attempting to uncover something about how the students evaluated the girl. Knowing only that she was being so unfairly tortured, what were their opinions about her as a person? What Lerner found back in 1965 became the foundation for a pivotal idea in social psychology. The students watching the film revealed an irrationally low opinion of the girl, which moved even lower when they discovered there was more pain in store for her later.
Lerner’s hypothesis, called the just-world hypothesis, has been experimentally demonstrated time and again. And because it has important implications for psychology, politics, philosophy and other social sciences, the just-world hypothesis has been explored by legions of psychologists trying to understand it more fully.
Here’s the gist: Because we so powerfully want to believe that the world is a fair place, we unconsciously and irrationally devalue the people who seem to be getting a raw deal. “Blaming the victim” is a more recent phrase used for this bias.
You can test this out in yourself. Unless you have inside knowledge of the parking lot incident at Gelson’s — if you just read the news or read the little vignette above, in other words — you may have come quickly to the opinion that the police officer was acting pretty reasonably. If this is the case, you might notice, by looking closely, that you were tugged by a desire to believe that the police are usually on the right side of the law. That the world is basically a fair place, in other words. If you notice this tendency in your thinking, don’t worry. You’ve got company. According to Lerner’s theory, the tendency to see the world as overall just and fair is basic to human personality.
The Little Guy Always Gets Screwed — Right?
There is countervailing tendency in some people. They look through just the opposite mental filter. There are many names for this tendency. I like “Sinister Attribution Error.” It’s catchy. Of course, it is not actually true that the little guy always gets screwed, anymore than that people tend to get what they deserve. These are both biases that people lay on top of the world unfolding before them.
Did you (like many of the bystanders) quickly conclude that the cop was operating out of abusive motivations? Then your thinking may be skewed toward seeing powerful others and institutions as sinister. Given the information contained in the press reports — the ones I saw, at least — there really wasn’t a sufficiently filled out picture to determine whether police acted illegally, or if the pickup driver acted in a way that brought on an aggressive police response.
So, We Should Hold Off Pending Further Information — Right?
What purpose does it serve to think in these distorted ways? For one, there’s a psychological benefit. Both tendencies — to view authority as mostly Machiavellian or mostly fair-minded — lower anxiety. Why? Because they impose the illusion of pattern and predictability upon a frighteningly random world. And, evolutionarily speaking, like all cognitive distortions, they provide a boost to our chances of survival because they simplify the world and allow for quick and dirty decision-making, which is infinitely more adaptive than making no decision as you wait for more information to arrive.
Which takes us to perhaps the least noticed cognitive bias of the three. The illusion of unbounded rationality. According to this thinking error, if we gather enough data and think hard and long enough about it, we will find the truth hidden behind our cognitive biases and the shortcuts of heuristic thinking.
But truth isn’t like that, except in the most strictly controlled scientific experiments. Facts don’t stay stable, they weave and bob. There is only so much time and brainpower available to make the decisions required to keep us alive right now: If we think too hard or too long, the moment is gone and the facts are all changed. At most of the crossroads we face, we make decisions, even life and death ones; we act with confidence, then move on.
In other words, in the real world, there is no such thing as complete information or complete rational consideration of something as (almost infinitely) complex as the emotional dance between a cop and a pickup driver struggling together in a grocery store parking lot.
Our heuristic mental shortcuts leave each of us trapped in a cartoon world of stereotypes and biases, in other words, but we’re stuck with it. We can’t escape these limitations for most practical purposes, but by recognizing and understanding them a little, we gain perspective on ourselves and a little extra tolerance for people who see the world differently. Can that be enough for now?
— Russell Collins, Psy.D., is a Santa Barbara psychotherapist and divorce mediator. Click here for more information.
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 11.03.11 @ 08:58 AM
Russell,
Excellent article! I’d love to know your take on individuals who question everything they hear and see, and how this plays into the thinking processes you described herein.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.03.11 @ 07:41 PM
Interesting article, but I don’t buy it. Every witness to this incident just happens to be a certain personality type - what are the odds of this happening. Believe me, if the video shows the driver resisting arrest and the policeman justifiably using sufficient force to apprehend the guy, I will change my mind in a New York second.
Excuse me, if I suggest that a lot of this tripe is psychobabble. Someone once told me that a person who becomes a psychotherapist is someone who is unconsciously attempting to quiet their own mental demons. I don’t know but to say it is impossible to objectively assess the video seems like conjecture at best. To say that the incident seems suspicious when all the witnesses see it the same way, is an inherently rational response. Personally, I find it laughable to be typecast by a psychotherapist without knowing me or ever talking with me.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.04.11 @ 12:51 AM
the truth is what you believe
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.04.11 @ 08:22 AM
Lou,
I will refrain from making a judgement since I wasn’t there. However, generally speaking people do tend to interpret, if not see things, the way they want to. I have witnessed this phenomenon myself more than a few times.
Generally speaking, because of several highly publicized events of law enforcement using excessive force, I honestly believe that more people are pre-disposed to thinking the worst. It’s unfortunate, because if you look at the overall number of arrests, and the cases of excessive force, it is a small percentage in relation to those law enforcement officers who do it right.
In that light, I can fully understand why, in this town, witnesses would all see the same thing. I find it curious, because I haven’t heard that any of the witnesses were within hands reach of what was going on. And the fact is, unless you have your hands directly on a persons body, you could not tell whether they were tensed up and resisting or not.
Again, I’m not making a judgement call here. If the officer did in fact use excessive force, he should be dealt with appropriately. I’m just not convinced that it’s that easy to tell, even looking at the video. And if you are already anti-government in stance, it’s not a huge leap of faith to believe it’s a case of abuse.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.04.11 @ 09:18 AM
Socaljay,
I agree that some people will see what they want and will not be persuaded to deviate from their preconceived notions no matter what. I just don’t think I and many other people fall into this category. I have never said I know for sure this policeman is guilty of a crime, but I had a feeling the police would attempt to sweep it under the rug and try to cover it up if they could get away with it. There have been too many incidents with the police in this town to naively trust them. Also, when all the witnesses are saying the same thing (they could be wrong), I think it deserves an independent investigation. As I said, I am willing to change my mind if the video clearly shows the driver was resisting arrest. I don’t think I am wedded to a point of view because of a certain personality type.
I suppose what stokes my anger with the police in this town is their militant union which sends me deceptive (actually lies) political advertisements endorsing candidates for reasons totally unrelated to the pablum they would have a gullible electorate swallow. I believe the union actually runs the police dept in this town, and our city leaders are petrified of them. It has gotten to this point because Sanchez is an ineffective leader, so we have the inmates running the asylum. Their sweet retirement pension where they can retire at age 50 at 90% of their last year salary, inflation indexed for life, is ridiculous. In my mind this is an out-of-control police dept that has lost sight of reality, and now have their own agenda which is quite different than the one they are suppose to serve.
Finally, I don’t have much regard for the psychotherapy profession. I actually know quite a few people who are therapists, and since I know these people very well, I can’t believe, considering the extent of their own neurotic behavior, they would be in any position to advise anyone about their problems. It is laughable to me, given how screwed up they are.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.04.11 @ 02:19 PM
This sums it up:
http://www.credoaction.com/comics/2011/11/officer-friendly/
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 11.06.11 @ 02:32 PM
I find your article fascinating. What does this tell us about our justice system? Every day judges and jurors are asked to determine the “truth” and pass judgment.
I recently served on a jury for a domestic violence criminal case. What I heard in the courtroom was as thought-provoking as what I heard in the jury deliberations room. Each person brought a very unique perspective to the table. As a jury we struggled to figure out the “truth.” One person didn’t want to decide at all because she felt that our inability to know the “absolute” truth meant there was reasonable doubt, and thus, the defendant should be acquitted. We also debated our biases (known and unknown) in favor or against law enforcement. In the end, we followed the jury instructions to the letter, step by step. In doing so, we arrived at a verdict—but not all of us felt convinced and correct in our conclusions. Our job was done, however. We didn’t recant our decision. We will never know the “truth,” yet we stood in judgment of another’s actions.
All I can say is I’m glad this wasn’t a capital crime. Besides my aversion for capital punishment, I wouldn’t want to stand in judgment of another when such severe consequences are at stake.
Do I have any thoughts on how to improve our justice system? No. It seems that we are doing the best we can and, frankly, we’re very lucky as a people to have this system in place. I do recognize, however, that the quality of justice very much depends on the quality of the prosecution and the defense and on the ability and desire of the jury to follow jury instructions. If the relevant facts are not properly revealed or discounted, then the outcome in any trial could be dramatically different. If the jurors can’t or won’t follow the jury instructions, then the members of the jury will carve out their own sense of justice, apart from the law (a runaway jury).
During our deliberations we hung on every word and every action revealed during the trial. We compared what we heard at the trial with our understanding of the elements of the crime and any defense as defined in the instructions. I think this “rational” approach made it seem that we arrived at the “right” decision, but really, who knows?
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
Russell Collins: Listening the Answer to So Many of Life’s Problems
Why haven’t we mastered it yet?
Russell Collins: Alleged ‘Excessive Force’ Incident a Case Study in Cognitive Bias
Regardless of what the Santa Barbara police video shows, people will see what they expect to see
Russell Collins: When Pop Psychology Hurts More Than It Helps
The answer to our codependency may be acknowledging our vulnerability, rather than hiding or resisting it
Russell Collins: Are Relationships the New Prozac?
New theory about depression suggests mood fluctuates with experiences of being either connected or alone
Russell Collins: Why Good Parents Have Bad Fights About Child Rearing
Fathers and mothers typically have different ideas about parenting, and new research says they’re both right
Weather: Partly Cloudy 51.0º
Search Noozhawk »
