Personality and cognitive processes in life and death decision making: An exploration into the source of judgment errors by police special squads
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to understand judgment errors by special police units such as those documented after the assault by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms on the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas. The study examined the relation between personality traits, the cognitive organization of safety and survival skills, and past deadly force encounters in 131 tactical and command officers of Violent Crimes and Fugitives Task Forces, and as they executed live high‐risk arrest warrants in an all‐inclusive decision‐making simulation environment. Logistic regressions showed that getting shot on the job was related to very low neuroticism and low sensation (experience) seeking among officers. Getting shot in a deadly force encounter during a simulated team entry was also related to low neuroticism and low experience seeking. Making safety and survival errors in a simulated entry was positively related to toughmindedness in Task Force tactical officers but negatively related to toughmindedness in Task Force leaders. Principle components factor analysis of 27 self‐reported safety and survival competencies showed that, generally, TF leaders reasoned with higher cognitive processes of analysis and deliberation while tactical personnel reasoned more in terms of reactive and procedural knowledge. Getting shot during a simulated dangerous encounter was more likely to occur when there was a mismatch between task demands and an officer's preference of one knowledge system over another. It was speculated that the poor judgment by command staff at Waco might have been related to their use of a procedural knowledge system when higher cognitive processes were needed. Greater experience with executing arrest warrants would have triggered the recognition of a serious anomaly, which would have primed the use of higher cognitive processes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".