The Psychology of Prejudice in Bias-Based Tragedies.

30 January, 2021

The Amadou Diallo case is a quite famous and lasting example of police officers shooting and killing an innocent and unarmed black man. This tragedy shook New York and reverberated around the world. Personally, I have seen interviews with Diallo’s mother over the years that have brought me to tears. The story of a young man, who was seen as blessed for the opportunity to come to America and build a better life but whose potential was tragically and horrifically cut short through no fault of his own, is horrifying and heartbreaking.4 I say all of this to make sure that my bias is well-known and reported upfront. I will strive to keep any personal feelings in regard to the court case, protests, and subsequent careers of the officers involved separate and focus merely on the potential cognitive reactions and events that took place on the night of Diallo’s death. Perhaps with the emotional aspects of this put forward, it will allow for a more analytical perspective to take root. There are several things at play in this situation; the time of day the incident occurred and the high stakes for the officers created a perfect storm of factors that manifested in this tragedy. 

The officers were on high alert before they ever saw Diallo simply because of their assignment. They were on edge, hoping to catch someone who might end up being the responsible party for years of terror experienced in that area. This predisposition towards viewing individuals as suspicious certainly could have helped to elevate the level of anxiety that the officers were feeling. As was discussed in this week’s readings, Allport classifies anxiety as arising from prolonged and sustained fear.1 Given the amount of time that the police department was searching for the culprit and the terror within the community, it is reasonable to think that the officers may have been experiencing heightened anxiety surrounding their assignment before they ever encountered Diallo. 

Cognitively, humans are designed to see the dark as a threat, and nighttime often accompanies heightened anxiety and instinctual and quick, instead of well throughout, reactions.5 It is incredibly easy to get caught up in the number of bullets fired. Indeed, the 41 shots fired are a hugely famous part of the case. Many individuals at the time and in the years since have focused on this number as a sign that the cops responded with brutal and unnecessary force. It may also be a sign that the officers’ biases lead to their decision-making that night rather than their good sense or reasoning skills.2  Firing in rapid succession makes sense if it is a quick reaction or an outlet for a building and misplaced anxiety. 

It is well known that police officers typically share a strong sense of comradery. This is encouraged and considered an important part of the job. This “in-group” mentality can help explain some of what took place. One of the officers, a member of the group, shouted that the individual in question had a gun, prompting a response from the entire group in regard to an identified threat. While the first officer may have genuinely believed there was a gun, the statement of a threat would have been more than enough for the other officers to react without actually processing what they saw or thought.3 

There is also a clear disassociation the officers had when describing what they saw, in addition to a misunderstanding and potential misinterpretation of Diallo’s actions. The dark, in addition to making it easy to take his movements as suspicious or threatening, also allowed the officers to stereotype this “figure” as opposed to viewing him as a man or fellow human. The lack of information and understanding of his motions, in addition to a lack of visible features to empathize with, helped create a menacing view of a person who was “other” and could be the threat the officers were looking for. If not the original threat, he could certainly be seen as an “other” who was up to no good or worthy of suspicion.1 

There can be little doubt that mental efficiency, the process by which stereotyping allows us to simplify large quantities of information, played a major part in what took place that night. The officers in question had a multitude of reasons, outside of and apart from purely racist intentions, for reacting the way that they did. Although race plays a part in stereotyping, the reactions that result from stereotyping are typically the result of a cognitive process that is not the same as the overt racism we typically consider in these cases.5 It is also worth noting that individuals rely more on stereotyping when they are away from their cognitive peak and lack proper rest. A morning person relies on the simplified mental process in the evening, while a night owl may rely on the simplification in the morning. It is impossible to know what the natural circadian rhythm was for each of these officers, but it is reasonable to posit that they were not all functioning at their cognitive peak after midnight as this is hardly a natural time for most individuals to be awake and fully alert.3 Working different shifts or recently changing shifts could also affect this natural rhythm and the way they process information at that particular time of night. For example, my mother, who works 7 pm - 7 am as a 911 dispatcher, is far more alert at 2 am than I would be; however, she is hard-pressed to fill in for a day shift slot as her sleep pattern makes functioning well at 10 am (when I would be quite alert) very challenging for her. 

Factors such as the case assignment, time of day, the lighting, and the training to act as a group versus independently analyzing a situation, in addition to the stereotyping that we’d expect, all played a role in why the officers behaved the way that they did and why a young innocent and unarmed man lost his life. The real failure is that these officers lacked the training and resources to overcome their instinctual cognitive shortcuts that created this perfect storm of circumstances.4 Had they been better equipped to look past the stereotypes and further process the available information, Amadou Diallo might still be alive. 

References:


  1. Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2015). The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.

  2. Andrew, S. (2020, August 26). Why police shoot so many times to bring down a suspect. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26/us/why-police-shoot-so-many-rounds-trnd/index.html

  3. Bodenhausen, G. V. (1990). Stereotypes as Judgmental Heuristics: Evidence of Circadian Variations in Discrimination. Psychological Science, 1(5), 319-322. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00226.x

  4. Fritsch, J. (2000, February 26). 4 OFFICERS IN DIALLO SHOOTING ARE ACQUITTED OF ALL CHARGES. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2000/02/26/nyregion/diallo-verdict-overview-4-officers-diallo-shooting-are-acquitted-all-charges.html

  5. Neuberg, S. L. (n.d.). Module 3: Mental Efficiency & Self-Enhancement. Lecture presented at PPS 503: Prejudice, Stereotypes, and Intergroup Relations in ASU, Tempe, Arizona.


Previous
Previous

Understanding Prejudice

Next
Next

Opinion: On Grief