Exploring Bias in Police Shooting Decisions With Real Shoot/Don’t Shoot Cases
Abstract
The controversy surrounding recent high-profile police shootings (e.g., Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri; Laquan McDonald in Chicago) has prompted inquiry into the possible existence of bias in officers’ use-of-force decisions. Using a balanced mix of shoot/don’t shoot cases from a large municipal police department in the Southwestern United States, this study analyzed the effect of suspect race on officers’ decisions to shoot—while accounting for other theoretically relevant factors. Findings suggest that Black suspects were not disproportionately the target of police shootings; Black suspects were approximately one third as likely to be shot as other suspects. This finding challenges the current bias narrative and is consistent with the other race-related findings in recently published research.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Anti-Black encounter bias is a confounding factor in recent encounter-conditional studies finding anti-White racial disparities.
“For this reason, anti-Black encounter bias is a confounding factor in recent encounter-conditional studies finding anti-White racial disparities (e.g., Fryer, 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Worrall et al., 2018).”
From Racial Disparities in Police Use of Deadly Force Against Unarmed Individuals Persist After Appropriately Benchmarking Shooting Data on Violent Crime Rates (2021) · cites this paper as Worrall et al., 2018
Cites
Ross, C. T. (2015) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141854 · Cited by 359 · see citing works
A Bird's Eye View of Civilians Killed by Police in 2015: Further Evidence of Implicit Bias
Nix, J., Campbell, B. A., Byers, E. H., & Alpert, G. P. (2017) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12269 · Cited by 336 · see citing works
An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force
Fryer, R. (2016) · doi:10.3386/w22399 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Race, Crime, and the Micro‐Ecology of Deadly Force
Klinger, D., Rosenfeld, R., Isom, D., & Deckard, M. (2016) · Criminology & Public Policy · doi:10.1111/1745-9133.12174 · Cited by 198 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Ross, C. T., Winterhalder, B., & McElreath, R. (2021) · Social Psychological and Personality Science · doi:10.1177/1948550620916071 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
“For this reason, anti-Black encounter bias is a confounding factor in recent encounter-conditional studies finding anti-White racial disparities (e.g., Fryer, 2016; Johnson et al., 2019; Worrall et al., 2018).”
BackgroundShjarback, J. A. (2019) · Journal of Crime and Justice · doi:10.1080/0735648x.2018.1547353 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
- Authors
- Worrall, J. L., Bishopp, S. A., Zinser, S. C., Wheeler, A. P., & Phillips, S. W.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Dallas Police Department, TX, USA
- Buffalo State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Worrall, John L.
- Venue
- Crime & Delinquency
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-03-08
- Volume
- 64
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 1171-1192
- ISSN
- 0011-1287 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-387X
- OpenAlex
- W2793258718
- Cited by
- 63
- References
- 4
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 4
- FWCI
- 28.29
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Crime & Delinquency (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Criminal Justice and Corrections Analysis
- Social Sciences › Education › Education Discipline and Inequality
- Keywords
- police shootings, use of force, racial bias, police decision-making, racial disparities in policing, Michael Brown
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
