“Should I stay or should I go”: experience does not make the expert in police snap decision-making

Author:

Tejeiro RicardoORCID,Shortland Neil,Paramio AlbertoORCID,Alison Laurence,González José Luis

Abstract

PurposeWe analyse the role of subject matter experts' experience in establishing performance benchmarks for ambiguous and unstructured police tasks.Design/methodology/approachParticipants included 156 students in the final week of their training to become commissioned officers of a police force (78.8% male, aged 21 to 54); 55.8% had previous experience as police officers, with 5–39 years of service (expert group). Participants completed an online questionnaire providing demographic data and responded to three written vignettes presenting critical high-ambiguity, time-pressure, and life-threatening situations.FindingsHaving prior police experience or being familiar with the situations presented in the vignettes did not impact the decisions made in two of the three vignettes. In the vignette where differences appeared, there was no clearly preferred option among the experts. Experts provided shorter and less elaborate justifications for their decisions compared to novices.Originality/valueOverall experience and personal familiarity with situations do not appear to be sufficient conditions for identifying someone as an expert in this type of tasks. Results are discussed in relation to the difference between knowing what one should do and what one does due to stress and the moral or “sacred” values prevalent in police forces.

Publisher

Emerald

Reference28 articles.

1. Beyond prognostication: ambulance personnel's lived experiences of cardiac arrest decision-making;Emergency Medicine Journal,2018

2. Recalling responses: a RCT on police learning and knowledge retention;Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice,2023

3. Today marks 38 years since brave Blackpool officers died in tragic sea rescue,2021

4. Ethical orientations of state police recruits and one-year experienced officers;Journal of Criminal Justice,2002

5. Perception in chess;Cognitive Psychology,1973

Cited by 1 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3