BIAS BARRIER IN MULTI-DIMENSIONAL

ASSESSMENT ON POLICE ETHICS

VATT BANKOSON

A Proposal presented for Peter Ustinov

Anti-Prejudice PhD Scholarship
Durham University School of Applied Social Sciences
Year 2015/2016
 Contents
Page

Background & Essence 1

Research Objectives 5

Conceptual Framework 5

Types of Bias 5

Multi-Dimensional Assessment 6

Police Ethics 7

Research Methodology 7

Population & Sampling 7

Research Instruments 7

Validity & Reliability 8

Data Collection 8

Data Triangulation 8

Data Analysis 8

Research Benefits 9

References 9
 BIAS BARRIER IN MULTI-DIMENSIONAL ASSESSMENT ON POLICE ETHICS

Background & Essence

Bias (Allport, 1954; van Dijk, 1983; Devine, 1989; Roithmayr, 1997;
Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002) stands principally a historically and culturally free
assessment, since a particular tendency, mainly disturbance of the mind establishes
opinions that prevent balanced consideration of an issue by causing favoritism in a
person or thing, influencing so exactly unethically. To select bias standards destroys
an individual's potential ability to create an entity of ethical values addressing certain
traits, qualities, and skills that support sufficiency, effectiveness and maximum for
the people treated unjustly and victimized over their subjective bias due to their
background status rather than the value of their presences and performances.

Most difficult problems in getting good results with quality evaluation are
the avoidance of thinking, acting and emotional conflicts on the part of evaluators.
Via exploration of causes on bias in assessment, the validity of value ratings
probably seems to be risked when appraisers react rather emotionally than rationally
in the grading systems. Policy experts planning to direct an evaluative program
should pay attention to potential resources of predisposition.

Possible effects have been raised to consider bias in assessment (Evans,

1950). Firstly, assessors worry about shortage to make the perfect assessments
such as (a) insufficient knowledge about the rating procedures, (b) inadequate
knowledge about some or all of the judgments, (c) failure to rate members on some
of the difficult indicators, and (d) the detailed nature of a great number of personnel
to be evaluated, and (e) a lack of time to make necessary appraisals. Secondly, the
evaluators may doubt the justice and accuracy of other’s rating methods, by (a)
reluctance in the true picture likely distorted by some of statistical procedures, such
as forcing scores to fit a normal curve of distribution, (b) uncertainty from the type
of quality that the graders consider important, or addition of some features that they
consider unimportant, (c) disagreement with the authors of a measure as whether to
the best that items should receive, (d) lack of knowledge as to the final results of
their own actions as a judge, as when deciding a certain phrase as "most typical" or
"least typical" of member's results, (e) distrust that unqualified raters are being
 2

invited in the same committee, (f) disappointment of an overriding review of their

ratings by a superior considered less well aware with the member's qualifications
and performance, and (g) interferences that outsiders try to influence their ratings of
certain members. And thirdly, the inspectors may guess a result of the ratings,
caused by (a) knowledge that their superior will monitor and do not agree with some
of their conclusions, (b) hope of unpleasant communication with certain aggressive
members, (c) probability of using their effort ratings as a criterion of his own
effectiveness as a superior, and (d) distress about unexpected personal competition
from certain members that may be promoted to higher places if their ratings are
usually high.

Insights based on age level, family cluster, gender orientation, and other
features continues to misrepresent assessment decisions and thereby limit prospects
in qualities and acts for ordinary people. Research in social and behavioral sciences,
management, and education provides visions concerning the devices of bias and
involvements to control their effects, but still lacking vital substances. Concerns of
research studies are proposed to advance conceptual understandings of assessment
bias and improve valuation practices.

Unfortunately, most of the researches have related social bias in self-

assessment reports requiring multi-faceted evaluation. Some studies have shown the
relationship between various factors of bias resources and other features in a single-
scope management, together with global factors of evaluative techniques and
dependent backgrounds of population never addressing interdisciplinary fields of
prior issues. Some have explained general knowledge by ignoring a system of moral
concepts recognized in respect to a particular class of people’s actions on an exact
culture, such as ethical policing regarding merit providing taboo and tradition in the
conduct of police to serve public acceptance, reliance, and spirit (Hershey,
Kunreuther, & Schoemaker, 1982; Cunningham, 1984; Clapham & Fulford, 1997;
Malekan, 2003; Tweed, Thompson-Fawcett, & Wilkinson, 2013; Ranjan & George,
2014).

In order to encounter strange bias rooted in a refined thought leading to

mistakes in making decisions (Banaji & Greenwald, 2013), kind people try to shape
their actions and reactions toward their purposes of seeing bias as a dogged barrier
 3

between public thoughts, emotions and actions. Scholars have explained the wall of
certain proportions having affected their perceptions, decisions, and actions as well
as delaying personal, educational, and professional advancement (Ross, 2008;
Hutson, 2013; Smiley, 2013; Vedantam, 2013). Today well-wishers work to create a
just and complete society where public and communities battle against potential
barrier lying across future prospects. (Hopkins, 2014; Li, 2014; Staats, Capatosto,
Wright, & Contractor, 2015). For that reason, bias as a strong barricade refers to a
range of immoral and unpleasant behaviors forced by cold characteristics towards
some innocence because of mature, gender, exposure, adaptation, and provinciality,
including emotional injury, but verbal abuse, threats or insults.

To replace bias barrier among a strong barricade existing in individual

judgments, multi-dimensional assessment requires gathering some personnel data
from multiple sources in a circle of impact, direct and indirect command chains. The
multiple-rater appraisal that includes self-ratings and feedbacks from others such as
peers, subordinates, customers, and sometimes family, friends, and associates is a
particular tool designed to complete some gaps in superior ratings (Fleenor & Prince,
1997; Bracken, Timmreck, Fleenor, & Summers, 2001). The multi-trend response
procedures use a survey usually consisting of several items grouped together to
form the measures of research instruments, to check knowledge and competency,
such as ideas, management, reference and so forth. These essential and subsidiary
competencies are considered necessary to perform tasks of operation at best
practices (Howard, Byham, & Hauenstein, 1994). Response from multiple levels is
effective on account of providing valuable insights to professional performance
(Lublin, 1994).

The multi-degree ratings most commonly measure interpersonal

competencies such as leadership, teamwork, and public service that are valued
aspects of performance in working environs. Hoffman (1995) offers the significance
of observations about 360-degree feedback to (1) define corporate competencies,
(2) increase the focus on public service, (3) support team initiatives, (4) create a
supreme involvement in workplace, (5) decrease pyramids and promote reform, (6)
discover barrier to success, (7) assess developmental requirements, (8) lessen
discrimination and prejudice, (9) identify performance advantages; and (10) be
 4

practically best to implement. Ratings from multiple raters can be more reliable than
from a single rater especially self-assessment that reveals only a few perspectives
and therefore may become invalid (Mount et al., 1998; Edwards, Ewen, and
Vendantam, 2001).

However, the problem of multifarious-degree judgment arises with a

number of related issues concerning the construction and use of criteria. First, the
extent to which benchmarks are misread as to the same way of having an accurate
meaning has moved its probability to both of the assessees and the assessors that
have never shared a genuine understanding of the concepts. Second, the scope to
which those being judged have some influence in part of the process of constructing
the measures that are expressed in a very unusual depiction. And third, the
relationship between examiners and examinees is interfered by the unclear usage of
values and by the outcomes of appraisal process (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986;
Bettenhausen & Fedor, 1997; Caligiuri & Lazarova, 2002).

Police traffic with media has gradually led to professionalism, including

strategic expertise and best practice, within an assessment to promoting and limiting
disgrace to police department’s status. Moreover, police managements should care
about messages that media channels spread over police affairs to be taken as a
precise picture of the real practice maybe inaccurate due to damaged media
pictures. Most people get their information about crime and criminal justice through
media networks rather than personal interaction to prevent serious results against
their life and properties. Likewise, police officials attempting to serve public trust
with faulty reasons fall into trouble. Ethical aspects could be reasonable for by some
variables such as media portrayals of police. Further, media passages may affect
officers’ thoughts, tactics, and insights along with the influence towards ethical
selections (Oliver, 1994; Scharrer, 2001; Cavender & Deutsch, 2007; Dowler &
Zawilski, 2007). Hence, media as a diverse assessment to police ethics should be
added to a very dominant culture.

To judge the integrity of law enforcement agency, police profession has

the right duty upon prevention, and investigation of crimes and public protection
within the career of policing, as well as the pursuit of lawbreaker’s prosecution in law
enforcement, together with the liaison with the domain of court in punishment for
 5

the convicted offenders in criminal justice, fulfilling this duty by being fair and
balanced and giving an unselfish service. While the majority of police officers act
with honesty and integrity, immoral behaviour lessens from the public service and
harms the profession’s reputation. Police ethics exists to ensure the principles of
behaviour that promote, reinforce and support the highest levels on policing
occupation, also has a preventive role requiring the officers to prevent unethical
conduct by questioning behaviour that goes under expected morals. Besides, the
truthfulness supports reporting or assessing police behavior (Homel, 2005; Banks,
2013; Hartle, Parker, & Wydra, 2014). Henceforth, a study on bias barrier in multi-
dimensional assessment on police ethics should be regarded.

Research Objectives

The purpose of this research aims to study (1) the relationship

between bias barrier in multi-dimensional assessment by self, peers, subordinates,
superiors, media, stakeholders, and subject-matter experts, on police ethics, (2) the
effects of multi-dimensional assessment on police ethics, and (3) the guidance of
police ethics to policing, law enforcement, and criminal justice.

Conceptual Framework

The conceptualization of this research involves types of bias, multi-

dimensional assessment, and police ethics to be as various structures. Types of bias
describe the research contents and support the process of making questionnaires.
Multi-dimensional assessment explains various degrees of reliability and validity
between the informative bias gathered from subjects as superior, identity, and
subordinate, the bias from the public, and from the media. Police ethics is used to
strengthen the indicator of work performance that does not only relate to
knowledge, institution, but also ethical systems.

Types of Bias

Bias becomes at numerous points in research and combines multiple

distortion of truth on various sources as follows:
 Publication
 Selection
 6

 Exposure
 Detection
 Analysis
 Interpretation

Publication bias causes a partial view from literature, or academics search

only for favorite literature. Selection Bias occurs when informers being compared are
different even before the study begins. Proficiency, compliance, and extraction in
exposure bias of team researchers are quite different. Attention, reporting and
extreme response in detection bias distorts research. Post hoc significance, level of
significance, and data dredging in analysis bias lead to incorrect conclusions. And
interpretation bias from significance notions and exhaustion lessen the depth of
investigation (Taylor & Chang, 2013). Moreover, most research findings often
become unacceptable (Indrayan, 2012), since some bias is discovered after
publishing on various factors identified as a subsidiary sequence that all of them are
collections of the similar type such as bias in concept, definition, design, instruction,
length, mistake, assessment, interview, observation, instrument, Hawthorne, recall,
response, repetition, mid-course, self-improvement, digit, nonresponse, recording,
power, presentation, etc.

Multi-Dimensional Assessment

Multi-source assessment gathers feedback from multiple sources.

1. Oneself
2. Peers
3. Subordinates
4. Superiors
5. Media
6. Stakeholders
7. Subject-matter experts (Hardison, Zaydman, Oluwatola, Saavedra,
Bush, Peterson, & Straus, 2015).
 7

Police Ethics

These policing principles reinforce as the following of existing procedures

and regulations for ensuring standards of professional behaviour for police officers,
general staff, law enforcement officers, and those in criminal justice:-

1. Accountability: To be subject to decisions, actions and oversights.

2. Fairness: To treat people fairly.
3. Honesty: To be truthful and trustworthy.
4. Integrity: Always to do the right thing.
5. Leadership: To lead by good examples.
6. Objectivity: To make choices on evidence and at best professional
judgment.
7. Openness: To be open and transparent in actions and decisions.
8. Respect: To treat everyone with respect.
9. Selflessness: To act in the public warnings and interest (College of
Policing, 2014).

Research Methodology

The mixed method research studying the relationship between bias

barrier in multi-dimensional assessment by multiple sources on police ethics, the
effects of multi-dimensional assessment on police ethics, and the guidance of police
ethics, consists of population and sampling, research instruments, validity and
reliability, data collection, data triangulation, and data analysis as follows.

Population & Sampling

The samples are purposively selected from (1) 500 police trainees in
Police College to represent nationwide police officers, (2) 100 entrepreneurs in Police
Department to signify stakeholder population, (3) 100 reporters associating with
Police Department to embody the media, (4) 10 public media experts, and (5) 10
police ethics experts to denote subject-matter expert population.

Research Instruments

This research uses (1) questionnaires with open ends to administer the
subjects of police trainees as assessment by self, peers, subordinates, superiors,
 8

media, and stakeholders; (2) interview forms to direct subject-matter experts on

police ethics, (3) focus group designs to oversee each agency from population, and
(4) content analysis patterns to make research findings, discussions, and
implications.

Validity & Reliability

As (Merriam, 1998: 202) reality is holistic, multi-dimensional and ever-

changing in qualitative research, the researcher and co-researchers build validity into
the processes from data collection through data analysis and interpretation under
the main supervision by advisor, co-advisor, and experts on multidimensional
evaluation. Reliability of the data and findings is planned, done, checked, and acted
to deal with the consistency, dependability and replicability of the prospective results
obtained from research (Nunan, 1999: 14).

Data Collection

The quantitative method is used to test hypotheses derived from

objectives, principles and conceptual framework to estimate the extent of bias
barrier in multi-dimensional assessment on police ethics by gathering information
from questionnaires. The qualitative technique is taken to record useful data
thoroughly, accurately, and systematically, using field notes, outlines, MP3,
photographs, etc. on interviews and focus group observations. Mainly, the
quantitative accounts are analyzed through descriptive-inferential statistics and
qualitative data by means of content description and thematic interpretations.

Data Triangulation

Data triangulation is used to increase the credibility and review the

authenticity of research findings by investigating the self-checking reliability of
advisor, and experts on multi-dimensional evaluation.

Data Analysis

1. To analyse data from a study of textbooks, theses, journals, articles,

publications, audio-visual presentations, online resources, etc. via content analysis
bases on objectives, conceptual framework, and practical guidelines (Berelson, 1952;
Krippendorff, 1980).
 9

2. To analyse data from questionnaires, interviews, and focus group

observations describes and infers statistical significance with support of SPSS latest
version.
3. To analyse the result findings by means of content report and topic
interpretations highlights objectives, conceptual framework, and practical guidelines
(Berelson, 1952; Krippendorff, 1980).

Research Benefits

1. Guidelines for prevention and adjustment against and over prejudice in

self and other source assessments.
2. Pros and Cons in using multi-dimensional assessment.
3. Management of police ethics in policing, law enforcement, and criminal
justice.

********

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. New York: Anchor Books.

Banaji, M. R. and Greenwald, A. G. (2013). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people. New York,
NY: Delacorte Press.
Banks, C. (2013). Criminal justice ethics: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bettenhausen, K. L. and Fedor, D. B. (1997). Peer and upward appraisals: A comparison of their
benefits and problems. Group and Organization Management, 22(2), 236–263.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., and Church, A. H., eds. (2001). The handbook of multisource
feedback. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bracken, D. W., Timmreck, C. W., Fleenor, J. W. and Summers, L. (2001). 360 Feedback from
another angle. Human Resource Management, 40(1), 3–20.
Cavender, G. and Deutsch, S. (2007). CSI and moral authority: The police and science. Crime Media
Culture, 3(1), 67-81.
Clapham, M. M. and Fulford, M. D. (1997). Age bias in assessment center ratings.
Journal of Managerial Issues, 9(3), 373-387.
College of Policing. (2014). Code of ethics. Coventry, UK: College of Policing Limited.
Cunningham, H. M. (1984). Instruments bias in assessment centers. Ph.D. Dissertation in
psychotherapy from the University of North Texas.
 10

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5-18.
Dowler, K. and Zawilski, V. (2007). Public perceptions of police misconduct and discrimination:
Examining the impact of media consumption. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1), 193-203.
Edwards, M. R., Ewen, A. J., and Vendantam, K. (2001). “How Do Users React to Multisource
Feedback?” in Bracken, Timmreck, and Church, pp. 239–255.
Evans, J. W. (1950). Emotional bias in merit rating. Personnel Journal (pre-1986), 28(8), 290.
Fleenor, J. W. and Prince, J. M. (1997). Using 360-degree feedback in organizations: An annotated
bibliography. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership.
Hardison, C. M., Zaydman, M., Oluwatola, T., Saavedra, A. R., Bush, T., Peterson, H., and Straus, S.
G. (2015). 360-Degree assessments: Are they the right tool for the U.S. military? Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
Hartle, F., Parker, M., and Wydra, C. (2014). The digital case file: The future of fighting crime with
big data. Issues in Information Systems, 15(1), 257-266.
Hershey, J. C., Kunreuther, H. C., and Schoemaker, P. J. H. (1982). Sources of bias in assessment
procedures for utility functions. Management Science (Pre-1986), 28(8), 936.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., and Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup Bias. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),
575–604.
Hoffman, R. (1995). Ten reasons you should be using 360-degree feedback. HR
Magazine, April, 82-85.
Homel, R. (2005). Developmental crime prevention. In Nick Tilley (Ed.), Handbook of crime
prevention and community safety, pp. 71-106. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Hopkins, N. (2014). Invisible barriers and social change: Boston University’s 141st Commencement
Baccalaureate Address. Retrieved from http://www.bu.edu/news/2014/05/19/boston-
universitys-141st-commencement-baccalaureate-address-nancy-hopkins/.
Howard, A., Byham, W., and Hauenstein, P. (1994). Multirater assessment
and feedback: Applications, implementation, and implications. Pittsburgh, PA: DDI.
Hutson, M. (2013). ‘Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People’ by Mahzarin R. Banaji and Anthony G.
Greenwald. The Washington Post, (February 8). Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/blindspot-hidden-biases-of-good-people-by-
mahzarin-r-banaji-and-anthony-g-greenwald/2013/02/08/4c42d6b8-6a1b-11e2-ada3-
d86a4806d5ee_story.html/.
Indrayan, A. (2012). Medical biostatistics. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Li, P. (2014). Hitting the ceiling: An examination of barriers to success for Asian
American women. Berkeley Journal of Gender, Law & Justice, 29(1), 140–167.
Lublin, J. S. (1994). Turning the tables: Underlings evaluate bosses. The Wall Street Journal, October
4, B1.
 11

Malekan, M. (2003). Understanding gender bias in assessment and evaluation practices in science
education. Thesis from Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning University of
Toronto.
Mount, M. K., Judge, T. A., Scullen, S. E., Sytsma, M. R. and Hezlett, S. A. (1998). Trait, rater and
level effects in 360 degree performance ratings. Personnel Psychology, 51(3), 557–576.
Oliver, M. B. (1994). Portrayals of crime, race, and aggression in “reality-based” police shows: A
content analysis. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 38 (1), 179-192.
Podsakoff, P. and Organ, D. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects.
Journal of Management, 12(1), 531-44.
Ranjan, A. and George, T. S. (2014). Evaluating social desirability bias in assessment. Indian Journal
of Health and Wellbeing, 5(8), 948-950.
Roithmayr, D. (1997). Deconstructing the distinction between bias and
merit. California Law Review, 85(5), 1449-1507.
Ross, H. (2008). Exploring unconscious bias. Diversity Best Practices CDO Insights, 2(5), 1-17.
Scharrer, E. (2001). Tough guys: The portrayal of hypermasculinity and aggression in televised police
dramas. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45(1), 615-634.
Smiley, T. (2013). Social Psychologist Anthony Greenwald’s Interview on Blindspot. Retrieved from
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/tavissmiley/interviews/anthony-greenwald/.
Staats, C., Capatosto, K., Wright, R. A., and Contractor, D. (2015). State of the science: Implicit bias
review 2015. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University Press.
Taylor, S. and Chang, D. (2013). Statistical Bias. Retrieved by
http://medicine.missouri.edu/ent/uploads/Statistical-Bias.pdf/.
Tweed, M. J., Thompson-Fawcett, M., and Wilkinson, T. J. (2013). Decision-making bias in
assessment: The effect of aggregating objective information and anecdote. Medical Teacher,
35(10), 832.
van Dijk, T. A. (1983). Cognitive and conversational strategies in the
expression of ethnic prejudice. Text, 3(1), 375-404.
Vedantam, S. (2013). What does modern prejudice look like? Retrieved from
http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2013/04/22/177455764/What-Does-Modern-Prejudice-
Look-Like/.