Issue link: http://lawandordermag.epubxp.com/i/74973
Self-awareness is a good thing generally and a huge help in police work but becoming aware of, understanding, and managing personal attitudes and motivations can be a hefty challenge, especially when they are "unconscious." Self-reg- ulation based on a deeper awareness and understanding of unconscious dynamics can dramatically enhance performance in policing – and form a focus for risk management. Self-Fulfilling Expectations The Pygmalion Effect, named for a character in Greek my- thology, refers to the power of expectation and is extremely common in human dynamics. It can be used in powerfully positive ways in supervision and elsewhere and in other cases can be dramatically negative. The remainder of this article ex- plores some of its potential negatives as they bear on law en- forcement risk management. A classic example of this effect is what is known as the "Pygmalion in the Classroom" experiment by Harvard re- searchers Rosenthal and Jacobson. Teachers were given a list of their students with IQ scores and ratings of how well they could expect them to do during the upcoming year. In real- ity, the students were randomly assigned to two groups, one characterized as a high IQ/high expectation group, the other a low IQ/ low expectation group. Despite the random assignment to groups (which should have resulted in the same number of high and low perform- ing students being in each group and equal performance be- tween the groups), the students and groups performed much as they were labeled. It appeared the teachers' expectations unconsciously affected how they taught and evaluated the two groups and how the students responded. Another study, this one by Rosenhan, sought to find out to what extent our perceptions of the behavior of others are based on the actual behaviors seen or are instead influenced by the context of the behavior. In this study, eight "healthy" (not mentally ill) individuals got themselves admitted to psy- chiatric hospitals and subsequently tried to convince staff they (the new "patients") were ready to be released. Though the subjects faked "hearing voices" to get admitted, all other information they provided about themselves and their history was true. The plan was that, if they got admitted, they would immediately resume normal behaviors, including ending any reports of hearing voices, and try to be discharged as soon as possible. Somewhat to the surprise of both the researchers and fake patients, all eight "normal" people were admitted with a psychiatric diagnosis. Once admitted and labeled as having psychiatric problems, engaging in normal behavior was inter- preted by staff as abnormal. For example, if the fake patient was pacing due to boredom, the pacing was interpreted and noted in the hospital chart as a symptom of anxiety. Showing up early for lunch (because of boredom and meals being a highlight of the day) was in- terpreted as evidence of "oral acquisitive needs." The context of the behavior, i.e., being labeled mentally ill, changed the staff's view of the meaning of behavior and how staff re- sponded to it. So, applying this effect to law enforcement work, if an of- ficer decides someone is an "asshole" because of the pant style the person favors, the officer's negative labeling (thinking) regarding the person is likely to affect how the officer feels about the person. Those feelings may unconsciously shape the officer's behavior and transactional outcomes. For example, having labeled someone as suggested above, the officer may be less likely to communicate patiently and empathetically with the subject and may well have a shorter fuse on emotional responses like anger and annoyance. Perhaps more troublesome and as suggested by the studies mentioned above, the officer might begin to interpret the sub- ject's ongoing behavior more negatively, in line with the of- ficer's expectations of the subject. All this can of course cause the initial labeling to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a worst case, it can result in acute unfairness and even inap- propriate threat perception. To act reasonably, it is essential to keep the rational com- ponent of our brain operating properly. Training oneself to manage physiological and emotional arousal and monitoring our thoughts to screen for counter-purposeful beliefs and as- sumptions keeps our actions balanced and helps us deal more appropriately with the emotions that are often in play during significant decision-making. For purposes of law enforcement risk management (and probably life), harsh negative judgment and corresponding negative labeling are bad. Situational awareness and objec- tive analysis are good. Self-awareness and open-mindedness provide needed perspective. The author wishes to acknowledge the conceptual contribu- tions to this article by three of his professional colleagues: Dr. Michael Asken, Ph.D., career police psychologist, author of the acclaimed text "Mindsighting: Mental Toughness Skills for Police Officers in High Stress Situations" and coauthor (with Lt. Col. David Grossman) of "The Warrior Mindset"; Dr. Brian Fitch, Ph.D. in Human Development, by day a watch commander with the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, by night a professor of Critical Thinking in the Psychology De- partment of California State University, Long Beach; Cap- tain (ret.) Greg Seidel, Director of Training for the Thomas & Means Law Firm and head of The Impact Project, a national law-enforcement human relations consortium. LaO Post your comments on this story by visiting www.lawandordermag.com www.lawandordermag.com 15