A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics
Abstract
This study analyzes 131 police–citizen interactions observed during Fall 2016 and coded through systematic social observation. We assessed how often officers use de-escalation tactics, factors associated with their use, and the relationship between de-escalation and calm citizen demeanor. We found officers frequently employed de-escalation tactics, including the “respect” tactic of treating citizens in a respectful manner, the “human” tactic of getting on the citizen’s level and reducing power imbalances, and the “honest” tactic of being up front about the facts of the situation. Officers were more influenced by citizen demeanor than demographics in their use of de-escalation. The use of several tactics, including “human” (reducing the power differential between the cop and the citizen) and “calm” (the officer making an effort to control his or her own emotions), was associated with calm citizen demeanor. Directions for future research on this important topic are offered.
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?
Officers may use de-escalation tactics such as prioritizing communication and deemphasizing physical control to bend an encounter away from use of force.
“Similarly, officers may employ de-escalation tactics, such as prioritizing communication and deemphasizing physical control (Todak, 2017;Todak & James, 2018), to bend the trajectory of the encounter away from the use of force.”
From Randomized controlled trial of social interaction police training (2020) · cites this paper as Todak & James, 2018
Prior work suggests de-escalation typically includes prioritizing communication, especially procedurally fair communication, and de-emphasizing physical control.
“However, prior work has suggested that it typically includes the prioritization of communication -especially procedurally-fair communication -and a de-emphasis on physical control (Todak, 2017;Todak & James, 2018).”
From Randomized controlled trial of social interaction police training (2020) · cites this paper as Todak & James, 2018
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 83 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Todak, N., & James, L.
- Affiliations
- University of Alabama at Birmingham (US)
- Washington State University Spokane (US)
- Corresponding author
- Todak, Natalie
- Venue
- Police Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2018-07-10
- Volume
- 21
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 509-543
- ISSN
- 1098-6111 (ISSN-L)
- 1552-745X
- OpenAlex
- W2868487652
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 83
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 43.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Police Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Language, Discourse, Communication Strategies
- Keywords
- police-citizen interaction, police tactics, power imbalance, police-citizen relations
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