Perceptual–Cognitive Expertise in Law Enforcement: An Object-Identification Task

IF 2.2 Q3 ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making Pub Date : 2022-05-22 DOI:10.1177/15553434221104600
Dakota D. Scott, Lisa Vangsness, Joel Suss
{"title":"Perceptual–Cognitive Expertise in Law Enforcement: An Object-Identification Task","authors":"Dakota D. Scott, Lisa Vangsness, Joel Suss","doi":"10.1177/15553434221104600","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The few perceptual–cognitive expertise and deception studies in the domain of law enforcement have yet to examine perceptual–cognitive expertise differences of police trainees and police officers. The current study uses methods from the perceptual–cognitive expertise and deception models. Participants watched temporally occluded videos of actors honestly drawing a weapon and deceptively drawing a non-weapon from a concealed location on their body. Participants determined if the actor was holding a weapon or a non-weapon. Using signal-detection metrics—sensitivity and response bias—we did not find evidence of perceptual–cognitive expertise; performance measures did not differ significantly between police trainees and experienced officers. However, consistent with the hypotheses, we did find that both police trainees and police officers became more sensitive in identifying the object as occlusion points progressed. Additionally, we found that across police trainees and police officers, their response bias became more liberal (i.e., more likely to identify the object as a weapon) as occlusion points progressed. This information has potential impacts for law enforcement practices and additional research.","PeriodicalId":46342,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","volume":"16 1","pages":"157 - 176"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Cognitive Engineering and Decision Making","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15553434221104600","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, INDUSTRIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The few perceptual–cognitive expertise and deception studies in the domain of law enforcement have yet to examine perceptual–cognitive expertise differences of police trainees and police officers. The current study uses methods from the perceptual–cognitive expertise and deception models. Participants watched temporally occluded videos of actors honestly drawing a weapon and deceptively drawing a non-weapon from a concealed location on their body. Participants determined if the actor was holding a weapon or a non-weapon. Using signal-detection metrics—sensitivity and response bias—we did not find evidence of perceptual–cognitive expertise; performance measures did not differ significantly between police trainees and experienced officers. However, consistent with the hypotheses, we did find that both police trainees and police officers became more sensitive in identifying the object as occlusion points progressed. Additionally, we found that across police trainees and police officers, their response bias became more liberal (i.e., more likely to identify the object as a weapon) as occlusion points progressed. This information has potential impacts for law enforcement practices and additional research.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
执法中的知觉-认知专长:一个客体识别任务
少数执法领域的感知-认知专业知识和欺骗研究尚未检查警察培训生和警察的感知-认知专业知识差异。目前的研究使用了知觉-认知专业知识和欺骗模型的方法。参与者观看了暂时屏蔽的视频,视频中演员诚实地从他们身上的隐藏位置抽出武器,并欺骗性地抽出非武器。参与者判断演员是拿着武器还是没有武器。使用信号检测指标-敏感性和反应偏差-我们没有发现感知-认知专业知识的证据;警察培训生和经验丰富的警察之间的绩效衡量没有显着差异。然而,与假设一致,我们确实发现,随着遮挡点的进展,受训警察和警官在识别物体方面变得更加敏感。此外,我们发现,在受训警察和警官中,随着遮挡点的增加,他们的反应偏差变得更加自由(即更有可能将物体识别为武器)。这些信息对执法实践和其他研究具有潜在影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.00%
发文量
21
期刊最新文献
Is the Pull-Down Effect Overstated? An Examination of Trust Propagation Among Fighter Pilots in a High-Fidelity Simulation A Taxonomy for AI Hazard Analysis Understanding Automation Failure Integrating Function Allocation and Operational Event Sequence Diagrams to Support Human-Robot Coordination: Case Study of a Robotic Date Thinning System Adapting Cognitive Task Analysis Methods for Use in a Large Sample Simulation Study of High-Risk Healthcare Events.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1