Welke drie bronnen van cognitieve bias (denkfouten zeg maar) spelen een rol bij politieoptreden en welke drogredenen helpen deze bias in stand te houden? Een leerzame introductie in het onderwerp van cognitieve bias. Ik haal er een paar zaken uit en verwacht van de serieus geïnteresseerde lezer dat deze het gehele artikel leest en niet vertrouwt op mijn (mogelijke vooringenomen) interpretatie. Alle quotes zijn uit het artikel (1).
Samenvatting
Cognitieve vooroordelen (bias) zijn geïdentificeerd als oorzaken van overmatig gebruik van geweld. In dit artikel betogen we dat de politie wordt geconfronteerd met serieuze uitdagingen bij het bestrijden van deze vooroordelen. Deze uitdagingen vloeien voort uit de aard van cognitieve vooroordelen, hun bronnen en de drogredenen die politieprofessionals misleiden als ze erover nadenken.
Deze drogredenen beperken de impact van inspanningen om cognitieve vooroordelen bij de politie te verminderen in de context van conflictbeheersing.
Om een systemisch begrip van cognitieve vooroordelen te bereiken en hun nadelige effecten, concludeert het artikel dat het implementeren van reflexieve structuren binnen de politie een cruciale voorwaarde is om effectief na te denken over invloeden van buitenaf, om vooringenomenheid te beperken en om drogredenen te beperken.
· Drie bronnen van cognitieve bias.
In de figuur uit het artikel bij deze blog zie je drie bronnen van cognitieve bias:
Drie categorien
”The first category relates to the specific situation, how it is perceived, processed, and interpreted: Interactional Data, Reference Data en Contextual Information.
The second category relates to the individual managing the conflict (i.e. interacting, using force, etc.). For instance, the causes of biases include individual experience, training, personality, or motivation. Onder meer:” Base Rate and Past Experiences, Organizational Factors, Education and Training en Personal Factors.
The final category captures sources that relate to human nature, the “cognitive architecture of the human brain” (Dror, 2020a, p. 7999). These are the sources we all share, independent of a specific role, such as a police officer managing conflict with a citizen. Onder meer Human and Cognitive Factors.
Drogredenen
Ethical Issues:
There is the incorrect belief that biases are an ethical issue of corrupt or deviant individuals (Dror, 2020a). It is not. Cognitive biases impact honest and dedicated individuals – and ofcourse police officers
Bad Apples
The fallacy of bad apples refers to the incorrect belief that errors and biases are a matter of competence, shifting the responsibility towards the individual police officer and away from any systemic issues.
Expert Immunity
There is the incorrect belief that subject matter experts are immune to biases . However, research in the domain of forensic science shows that even experts are not immune to biases (Dror et al., 2018). There is also evidence, that experts are more susceptible to specific biases, since the development of expertise itself leads to the creation of certain biases (Dror, 2020a). While these cognitive processes often enable experts to see solutions where others don’t (Mangels et al., 2020), these mechanisms may also create bias leading experts in the wrong direction.
Technological Protection
People uphold the incorrect belief that the use of technology eliminates bias. While the use of technological systems can reduce bias (Kleinberg et al., 2018), it is important to keep in mind that systems are build, implemented, used, and interpreted by humans, and as such are prone to biases (Mayson, 2018). There is a danger that people will incorrectly believe that using technology is a guaranteed protection from being susceptible to and affected by bias (Dror et al., 2012). Also, technology may introduce, replicate, or amplify biases (Ajunawa, 2020).
Bias Blind Spot
The bias blind spot refers to the incorrect belief that other experts are affected by bias, but not myself.
Illusion of Control
The illusion of control describes the incorrect belief that we can overcome our biases by mere willpower, once we is aware of and acknowledges them.
De oplossing?!
In order to combat the biases, fallacies, and their entanglement in police conflict management during citizen encounters, we advocate for two different points of departure with two different approaches, which complement each other in their effort towards one single main goal.
The first approach within the system of policing is fostering, enabling, advocating, and living reflexive practice, both at the individual and the organizational level.
Reflexive practice goes hand in hand with the second approach we propose: External influence. This approach entails the implementation of constraints, such as legislature and policies that reduce and prevent biases and fallacies from unfolding their impact.
Bron
1. Staller, M. S., Zaiser, B., & Koerner, S. (2022). The problem of entanglement: Biases and fallacies in police conflict management. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 24(2), 113–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/14613557211064054