Why Cops Make Fatal Errors

New research suggests that a police officer's ability to multitask influences the number of wrongful shootings. Christie Nicholson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


[Below is the original script. But a few changes may have been made during the recording of this audio podcast.]

Shooting an innocent person is a police officer’s nightmare. So far research has blamed such errors on environmental and racial stereotypes, but new research published in Applied Cognitive Psychology adds another variable.

Apparently, successfully multitasking and staying calm help cops make good decisions.

First, scientists measured the working memory of 24 police officers. Working memory refers to the amount of information we hold in our heads while we perform other tasks.

The cops then watched a video of a threatening situation in which a cop was killed, and their levels of arousal were measured via heart rate and facial movement.

After viewing the video, officers were asked to make decisions, by immediately clicking a “shoot” or “don’t shoot” key, when shown computer-generated slides of armed and unarmed targets.

Cops with limited working memory, and high emotional arousal, made more errors than cops with large working memory.

According to the authors high stress puts a strenuous load on working memory, and if one has limited working memory, their ability to accurately assess a situation is impaired.

So for those faced with multitasking and high stress, remember working extra hard to keep cool under pressure has useful benefits—perhaps even lifesaving ones.

—Christie Nicholson

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe