Photo by Phil Hearing on Unsplash
David Maliar
University of New Haven
Policing is a profession that operates in a nuanced environment. There is no single or correct way to approach the various, constantly evolving, and sometimes hazardous situations that police encounter. The most rigorously studied procedures seek to determine what is best for the country. Quality research should lead to sound procedures, but not all methods are infallible. There are several reasons a procedure could fall short, ranging from implementation problems to real-life situations that the research may not have accounted for (del Pozo et al., 2025; Thacher, 2019). In policing, the good faith doctrine is a modification to the exclusionary rule that allows evidence obtained (potentially) in violation of established procedure to be admitted if the officer was acting with genuine good intent (Stone, 1982). Another example would be the use of force. The use of deadly force can be justified if the situation warrants, based on factors including a reasonable officer’s perception of the incident in the moment (Graham v. Connor, 1989).
An officer’s perception of imminence can be influenced by their level of training and their individual skills at de-escalation. De-escalation is not always verbal; sometimes the appropriate application of force is necessary to bring about calm or to stop an imminent threat (Todak & White, 2019). It is about preventing the escalation of an incident for the sake of the well-being of those involved. The decision about what to do in the moment begins with a solid foundation of training, judgment, and aptitude. The goal of policing is not to apply the law perfectly or to use the perfect amount of force in every situation; it is to administer justice fairly, in good faith, and as a legitimate police entity.
Procedural justice aims to standardize policing practices by promoting greater perceived fairness while enhancing public perceptions of legitimacy. Legitimacy is defined as trust and confidence in the police force across all communities, and the community’s perceived obligation to that police authority, regardless of demographic differences (Tyler, 2025). Police legitimacy is important, and without it, there may be an unwillingness (especially among marginalized groups) to recognize police authority. This could lead to resistance, lack of cooperation, and unnecessary use of force (Tyler, 2017b). Policies that more clearly define when the use of force is justified are associated with declines in the use of force (Cassino & Demir, 2024). However, like everything, finding balance is important. A policy intended to reduce the use of force and increase the safety of the parties involved can also create hesitation and cause injury. Claims like this are generally anecdotal and in need of further examination (Engel et al., 2020)
High-profile incidents of police violence over the past 10 years have generated conversations about the fair treatment by law enforcement, from theory to practice. One of the primary goals of procedural justice is to standardize the practice of de-escalation during police encounters. Few studies have focused on the practical application of de-escalation skills and their effectiveness in the field. While anecdotal evidence from a skilled officer’s perspective is a good starting point, it is equally important to understand the broader effects as they relate to officer and citizen safety. The outcome of an encounter, outside the typical measurement of the application of force, is also important. For example, how are calls involving individuals in a mental health crisis resolved? Through an arrest, hospitalization, or no enforcement? The effectiveness of de-escalation should not be measured only by applied or restrained use of force (White et al., 2023).
The purpose of this paper is to evaluate and compare prior and contemporary literature on police de-escalation training and practices. Specifically, it explores whether the deployment of de-escalation tactics has a positive impact on procedural justice, police legitimacy, officer safety, and call-for-service outcomes. The paper examines the historical background of procedural justice and evidence-based practices, and how fair and respectful encounters can foster trust in law enforcement. Findings by Engel et al. (2022), Tyler (2017), and White et al. (2023) suggest that well-designed de-escalation programs can reduce the use of force in high-tension encounters and reduce the number of injuries to officers. This is contrary to the anecdotal belief that these “soft” tactics will only put officers in harm’s way. This is a call to researchers and policymakers to engage in rigorous research to strengthen evidence-based de-escalation principles and apply them to police organizations as a core component of community-centered policing. More than anything, this paper aims to demonstrate that the true strength of a police officer lies in their ability to build trust, preserve life, and reduce fear through de-escalation.
Review of Literature
The 1974 Kansas City Preventive Patrol Experiment marked a pivotal moment in policing research in the United States (Kelling et al., 1974). This study demonstrated the ineffectiveness of routine preventive patrols. In a randomized controlled experiment conducted in Kansas City, Kelling et al. (1974) found that the presence or lack of police patrols did not affect fear of crime, police response time, and citizen attitudes toward the police. There was also no difference in the level of crime reported. The term “evidence-based policing” was not coined until 1998, but the Kansas City study ignited a movement in policing centered on research and evidence, over tradition and intuition. With a growing amount of research occurring, Sherman (1998) developed the evidence-based policing model, taking inspiration from the concept of evidence-based medicine.
From the 1970s through the 1990s, the idea of research-based police practices and tactics gained momentum. By identifying problems in society and their causes, problem-oriented policing (POP) strategies were developed to tackle those issues (Goldstein, 1979). Spelman & Eck (1987) analyzed several POP projects and found early support for this practice with reductions in repeat call volume and decreases in certain crimes. Separately, it was found that arrests had a deterrent effect in misdemeanor domestic violence cases (Sherman & Berk, 1984). This led to the mandatory arrest policies that many states adopted. After these laws had been codified, however, further research revealed that mandatory arrests may not be as effective as once thought, and that arrests should be context-specific (Berk et al., 1992; Iyengar, 2007; Maxwell et al., 2001; Pate & Hamilton, 1992; Sherman et al., 1992; Sherman & Harris, 2015). This illustrates the importance of research replication and the evaluation of tactics. Sherman et al. (1989) also discovered that small geographical areas, referred to as “hot spots,” had the largest portion of crimes. These revelations led to more focused policing strategies over time.
These early findings sparked a revolution in policing that called for more rigorous evaluation of policing strategies. This led to a reevaluation of the standard model of policing, which was seemingly based on tradition and resistance to change. The 1990s and 2000s continued the call for further research. At the time, implemented practices such as community policing and hot spot policing generally lacked proper and thorough examination (Skogan et al., 2000; Weisburd & Eck, 2004). This showed a growing lag or disconnect between research and practice. The process of finding “what works” in policing was further refined by Sherman (2013), with his concept of targeting, testing, and tracking. The most significant hurdle is often the culture of policing that can be resistant to change. In general, police leaders can use Sherman’s model to provide an effective means of investigating what works for their agency and their community.
Procedural Justice
The 1970s proved to be a pivotal time for procedural justice research. Much of the contemporary work on procedural justice stems from the seminal work of Thibaut and Walker (1975). Their book contrasted outcome-based vs. process-based concerns in policing. They concluded that people are more likely to be satisfied with criminal justice decisions if there is a perception of fairness. This laid the groundwork for much of Tom Tyler’s extensive research on procedural justice and police legitimacy from the mid-1980s through today.
The public’s perception of the police as a legitimate force that should be respected and obeyed hinges on subjective individual and vicarious judgments about the fair application of procedures (Tyler, 1988; van den Bos et al., 1997). This is opposed to the focus on police outcomes (van den Bos et al., 1997). In other words, how the police treat the public generally affects their response to the exercise of police authority (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). When people perceive the police as legitimate, they are more likely to be empowered to comply and cooperate (Tyler, 2003).
Many high-profile cases over the past decade began with defiance of police. When there is a greater perception that the police are a legitimate authority, built on procedurally just practices, then defiance is diminished (Mazerolle et al., 2013; Tyler, 2017a). The short and long-term effects of procedurally just practices depend on the ongoing interactions of police that help build these perceptions (Tyler, 2003). De-escalation was also a practice identified by the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing (2015) as a key skill to gaining perceived authority.
De-Escalation
On December 18, 2014, President Barack Obama commissioned a task force co-chaired by Charles Ramsey and Laurie Robinson. They were tasked with creating a comprehensive overview of best practices for police that would reduce crime and simultaneously build public trust (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). One of the key recommendations for police departments was that they be required to have yearly use-of-force training that would include tactics in de-escalation. Todak & White (2019) concisely define de-escalation as “bringing calm to a crisis using the least amount of force possible” (p.842). This definition does not assume that de-escalation and use of force are two separate concepts or that one is more correct than the other. It is about building trust and rapport in emotionally intense situations, while reducing the likelihood of physical force. Part of building trust and legitimacy is encouraging a cultural mindset shift among our nation’s police officers. This includes a shift from a warrior (us vs. them) mindset to one that reflects guardianship. Plato believed that we should choose our guardians based on who seems “best at guarding the laws and the ways of the city. Those who are most stable, who are least likely to abandon the conviction that they must always do what they judge to be best for the city as a whole” (Plato, G M A Grube, & C D C Reeve., 1992).
The guardian will run toward danger and do what is right to keep society safe at all costs. They are of the people, not an outsider sent to rule and control the community. By learning to recognize individuals in crisis and how to communicate properly, police can avoid potential use of force and utilize alternatives to arrest (President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing, 2015). A general lack of research at the time of the task force report did not necessarily mean that de-escalation was ineffective; however, critics of the task force argued there was insufficient research to justify recommending the implementation of a nationwide de-escalation policy in policing (Lum et al., 2016). This served as a call to researchers.
Much of the subsequent research on de-escalation evaluated the efficacy of training in police departments. It became common to see examples of virtual reality training simulating tense experiences requiring de-escalation, along with classroom education regarding adolescent trauma. This type of training is intended to help officers become more comfortable interacting in relevant situations. Results of corresponding studies revealed that training reduces officer anxiety and elevates understanding of how to approach a crisis (Lavoie et al., 2023; Muñoz et al., 2024). But how does that translate to the real world?
The short-term effects of virtual reality de-escalation training indicated a positive impact on officer perceptions (Lavoie et al., 2023). Trained officers were generally well-equipped and used empathy when interacting in virtual scenarios, but stress in a real-world scenario may undermine an officer’s ability to de-escalate. The long-term effects of training on real-world interactions remained unknown. Initial studies questioned the ability of officer de-escalation training to lower stress over time and increase comfort with the deployment of de-escalation tactics (Lavoie et al., 2023; Muñoz et al., 2024). Police culture is a significant barrier to the success and implementation of de-escalation training. More experienced officers, paired together during training, were less likely to use the learned de-escalation tactics (Giacomantonio et al., 2019). However, in the same study, male officers who were paired with female officers were more likely to use the tactics. Officer motivation and receptivity to training also impact the success of these training programs (Engel et al., 2020).
Todak & James (2018) conducted a study where researchers rode along with officers and manually recorded interactions with citizens using a standard set of de-escalation variables. They found that even without training, officers were already employing de-escalation tactics with suspects and subjects. They used respectful tones and avoided “cop speak,” speaking to subjects as people and not subordinates. Officers with the most experience were more likely to calmly end an encounter with an escalated suspect/subject by using language that promoted respect, calmness, and empowerment. They humanized the subject, listened, compromised, and were honest. This was consistent with past research, which claims that dialogue promotes beneficial outcomes (Mazerolle et al., 2013). It was the content of that dialogue and treating the subject as a human that mattered most, bringing calm to a situation (Todak & White, 2019).
Further research has shown the benefits of having a mental healthcare clinician alongside officers (Yang et al., 2024). Officers who partnered with a clinician when responding to calls stated that having the extra resource helped de-escalate the situation even further. Some officers innately possess the rapport-building skills necessary to lower tension, while others must learn these tactics (del Pozo et al., 2025). Nonetheless, there are times when the stress of a scene can undermine an officer’s skills and lead to the use of force (Tyler, 2017a). The goal should be to find ways to encourage the merging of de-escalation tactics and stress reduction. Having qualified individuals at the scene of an incident alleviates stress and can make a difference in the outcome of the call.
A breakdown in appropriate responses from officers on tasks in which they are not highly trained is seen when there are high levels of stress and PTSD (Regehr & LeBlanc, 2017). The greatest effects are in high-stakes tasks that require professional judgment, such as the use of deadly force. Overall, the more experienced an individual is, the less stress they will experience in high-risk situations, and therefore they will have an increased ability to make good decisions (Johnson et al., 2014; Todak & James, 2018). There is also evidence that stress can be contagious, whether between an officer and a subject or between two officers (Dimitroff et al., 2017). This suggests a strong case for consistent high-quality de-escalation training to build on officer experience.
Researchers agree that ongoing training is necessary for significant improvement in de-escalation skills coupled with rigorous evaluation to determine the effectiveness of that training (Engel et al., 2020; Mehari et al., 2021). Although hopeful about the long-term effects of de-escalation training, Engel et al. (2020) described the quantity and quality of research and evaluation as “disappointing.” They also warned of the potential effects of decay on this perishable skill, encouraging the importance of frequent high-quality training. Engel et al. (2020) also mention that critics of de-escalation highlight the potential risk to officers who may hesitate in favor of de-escalation-first policies. The fear is that hesitation will lead to injury or death. Overall, there is little empirical evidence to support these concerns.
Contemporary Research
In 2022, Congress passed the Law Enforcement De-escalation Training Act. This act provided funding and guidance for law enforcement training in de-escalation tactics. A currently growing body of research also shows the effectiveness of de-escalation training, with continued calls for additional research and cooperation from law enforcement agencies (Engel et al. 2020). Two prominent researchers in the emerging field of de-escalation are Robin Engel (of the IACP/UC Center for Police Research and Policy at the University of Cincinnati) and Michael White (from the School of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Arizona State University). Although their articles focus on different aspects of de-escalation, a common theme is that the research is becoming more focused and rigorous, and it is beginning to align with initial notions that de-escalation influences positive behavioral change. They also agree that there is still more work to be done.
Methods
In a previous study, Engel et al. (2020) critiqued de-escalation research, asserting it lacked internal validity and generalizability. They also expressed concern about a lack of, and at times conflicting, data supporting de-escalation. The authors outlined five specific problems in the research: “(1) the variation across de-escalation training programs under examination; (2) the reliance on nonexperimental research designs that lack a comparable control group; (3) the failure to assess behavioral outcomes; (4) the prioritization of the assessment of short-term outcomes; and (5) the lack of examination of police officers” (Engel et al., 2020, p. 205). To address the information gap and address some of these issues, Engel et al. (2022) subsequently conducted an evaluative study on de-escalation training with the Louisville, KY, Metro Police Department.
Engel’s research team conducted a modified randomized control study of 1,049 sworn officers assigned to the patrol division to evaluate an in-service de-escalation training program called Integrated Communications, Assessment, and Tactics (ICAT). Developed by the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), the training teaches officers to use de-escalation and critical thinking skills during potentially volatile situations. An initial report associated with this study measured changes in officers’ attitudes toward training. In the current research, they employed a stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial (RCT), first developed by Hussey & Hughes (2007). With the understanding that each officer was required to participate in the training, and with no true control group, each randomly chosen cluster of officers began as a non-intervention “control,” not yet trained in ICAT. Each cluster was then randomly selected to “crossover” and undergo the training, and each cluster of officers was monitored pre- and post-intervention. In this way, trained officers were not on the same calls as non-trained officers. Eventually, all officers would become trained.
In another contemporary study, White et al. (2023) evaluated a de-escalation program developed by the Tempe, AZ, Police Department. The department created a team of police officers identified by fellow officers as possessing effective de-escalation skills. Between all the team members, they attended a total of 22 separate de-escalation training courses, bringing back the skills and philosophies of those programs they believed best fit their specific department. The Tempe de-escalation program manages the officer and the organizational process surrounding these difficult situations. This philosophy of de-escalation addresses Tyler’s (2017a) previous concern about how stress can undermine an officer’s skills. Including officers in the department during program development helped alleviate potential cultural pushbacks.
White et al. (2023a) conducted extensive interviews and focus groups with the top 14 de-escalators in the department and shadowed them for five months. A department-wide survey was conducted to collect the attitudes and perceptions of the whole department. This information was then used to develop the de-escalation program. The next step was to test the program’s effectiveness. Researchers randomly assigned half of the officers in the Tempe Police Department to receive the training. A total of 109 officers received the training, and 107 officers remained untrained in the control group. Once the officers were trained, researchers compiled data from the six months following the intervention. They were specifically measuring use of force, citizen injury, encounter length, and officer injury during calls for service. These data were compared to the control group and to data compiled six months before the intervention. Researchers also analyzed body camera footage to measure call length and the de-escalation principle of slowing down the encounter.
Finally, White et al. (2023b) continued their evaluation of the Tempe Police Department De-escalation Program by conducting phone interviews with 282 randomly selected Tempe community members who had post-training encounters with Tempe police officers in the control and treatment groups. They also examined body camera footage of 230 pre-intervention training situations and 236 videos post-intervention. These encounters represented non-force routine calls. The purpose of this study was to determine whether de-escalation training impacted officers’ general conduct outside the typical measure of force. Obtaining public perceptions, in addition to analyzing body camera footage, allowed dual validation of study results.
Research Findings
All three studies mentioned above employed more rigorous experimental designs to evaluate de-escalation strategies through actual citizen encounters following a training intervention. This addresses weaknesses in previous studies that assessed officers’ self-reported beliefs post-training. Based on the three recent studies, there are several important conclusions: de-escalation is effective, but simply training on this tactic is insufficient; de-escalation is more than a practice to reduce force; and although policy implications are clear, there is a strong need for further research (Engel et al., 2022; White et al. (2023a); White et al., 2023b).
First, contemporary research has produced positive outcomes for de-escalation in public encounters. Engel et al. (2022) found a 28.1% reduction in encounters involving the use of force, a 36% decrease in officer injuries, and a 26.3% decrease in citizen injuries. White et al. (2023a) identified a reduction in citizen injury by 58% and no increase in officer injury. This provides empirical evidence that counters anecdotal evidence that de-escalation leads to officer injuries. White et al. (2023b) took it a step further, finding that de-escalation adds more to an officer’s training than a means to reduce force. Procedural justice and legitimacy implications are also observed through the positive outcomes of routine calls. Body camera footage and citizen interviews indicate that trained officers slowed down interactions, engaged in more respectful communication, and were perceived as more just.
Second, in training, to help develop the de-escalation mindset, quality role players who can effectively respond to escalating and de-escalating cues are critical in training. Other helpful concepts that could increase effectiveness include learning from experienced peers, learning how to work with individuals in crisis, learning about different aspects of the world to better relate to people, and having the opportunity to review body camera footage of incidents where de-escalation was and was not effective. This can be helpful in honing de-escalation skills (Isaza et al., 2024; Mehari et al., 2021; White et al., 2023a). A good training program should focus on officer pre-care (properly preparing and training for the job), self-management (including emotional regulation), effective management of department resources, and resiliency (including debriefs, peer support, etc.) (White et al., 2023a). As with all research, there is room for improvement in the above studies, and they have identified paths that could be followed in future research.
Future Research and Policy Implications
On the surface, the above studies have limitations that are specific to certain agencies and may not be generalizable to larger, smaller, rural, or suburban police departments. A larger sample across multiple departments may have different results, but it may become increasingly difficult to conduct randomized control trials in this case. Future research should also include an organization “buy-in” variable that measures an agency’s collective belief in de-escalation. This could address any potential arguments that officers are getting hurt because they attempted to de-escalate first. If the principles are not properly implemented and practiced, the research implies that a decline in effectiveness is likely.
The contemporary studies were not maintained long-term and do not account for the important concept of decay. Future research should focus on the retention of information and the need for refresher training (Engel et al., 2022). The same could be considered for citizen perspectives over time and the effect of de-escalation on police legitimacy. Resources and budgets are often a driving factor. Identifying the return on investment for de-escalation training is a direction ripe for future research. This could illustrate the cost-effectiveness of de-escalation in relation to lawsuits, injuries, and other negative consequences. Finally, it is essential to continue investigating the idea that de-escalation has implications for police encounters in general. This could influence the broader category of procedural justice and police legitimacy, potentially leading to lower crime rates.
One of the challenges of procedural justice policies is that it is difficult to expect that a single interaction with the police can change an individual’s negative perceptions of the police. There is no immediate recognition of its effectiveness. Rather, it is continued procedurally fair actions that lead to an enhanced underlying sense of well-being in a community, with the police as a cooperative member of the community (Tyler, 2017a). Policies involving de-escalation implementation and funding seem to have been more aggressive in their forward movement compared to the associated research and evaluation. If the government is to mandate this training, greater support for the research and development of effective training programs should be a primary focus. Effective, evidence-based training should be available to all departments, including periodic reinforcement that is integrated into broader use of force and community policing department policies (Engel et al., 2022; White et al., 2023). This training cannot be a one-size-fits-all attempt at a national overhaul of police approaches; rather, it should be a response to the community’s needs and the department’s current culture.
Conclusion
The combination of past and current research indicates the positive effects of de-escalation on use of force, officer and citizen injuries, and police legitimacy. The research is moving in the right direction, but there is still work to be done gathering empirical support on de-escalation. A quality training program is necessary, but it will not be sufficient if police culture is resistant. Change starts with agency policy and should be incentivized predominantly by field supervisors who track the ongoing use of de-escalation tactics, which only work if reinforced and practiced. The de-escalation mindset must have strong, ongoing support from police leadership (Engel et al., 2022; White et al., 2023b).
Part of the buy-in needed within police culture is eliminating an adversarial mindset with the public. This dichotomous way of thinking not only can lead to more frequent uses of force, but it also leaves little room for de-escalation (Wolfe et al., 2024). The research in this paper has outlined initial support for procedural justice and de-escalation tactics. Research should focus on the efficacy of these tactics in allowing for safer police/public interactions while addressing the underlying obstacles to change.
The de-escalation mindset could be encouraged by a better definition of de-escalation. In the Tempe, AZ Police Department model, use of force was not considered a failure to de-escalate. If less force is used because the officer attempted to calm the situation, then that was seen as a win, especially if deadly force was avoided. In other words, de-escalation is more nuanced than a simple “hard” versus “soft” approach. Sir Robert Peel’s Seventh Principle defines the police as “the public, and the public are the police” (Peel, 1829). This basic definition implies much more than a band of men and women charged with enforcing the law. This resonates with the re-emerging idea of the police as a guardian of the community, protecting and educating with equity and dignity (Rahr & Rice, 2015), and aligns with the ultimate goal of keeping everyone safe from harm.
References
Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deterrent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 698–708. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095923
Cassino, P. P., & Demir, M. (2024). The effect of police reform on overall police misconduct and misconduct that involves the use of force. Journal of Criminal Justice, 94, 102263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102263
del Pozo, B., Belenko, S., Pivovarova, E., Ray, B., Martins, K. F., & Taxman, F. S. (2025). Using Implementation Science to Improve Evidence-Based Policing: An Introduction for Researchers and Practitioners. Police Quarterly, 28(2), 182–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111241265290
Dimitroff, S. J., Kardan, O., Necka, E. A., Decety, J., Berman, M. G., & Norman, G. J. (2017). Physiological dynamics of stress contagion. Scientific Reports, 7, Article 6168. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-05811-1
Engel, R. S., McManus, H. D., & Herold, T. D. (2020). Does de‐escalation training work?: A systematic review and call for evidence in police use‐of‐force reform. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 721–759. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12467
Engel, R. S., Corsaro, N., Isaza, G. T., & McManus, H. D. (2022). Assessing the impact of de‐escalation training on police behavior: Reducing police use of force in the Louisville, KY Metro Police Department. Criminology & Public Policy, 21(2), 199–233. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12574
Giacomantonio, C., Goodwin, S., & Carmichael, G. (2019). Learning to de-escalate: Evaluating the behavioural impact of Verbal Judo training on police constables. Police Practice and Research, 21(4), 401–417.
Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)
Hussey, M. A., & Hughes, J. P. (2007). Design and analysis of stepped wedge cluster randomized trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 28(2), 182–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cct.2006.05.007
Isaza, Gabrielle T., Robin S. Engel, and Ryan T. Motz. 2024. Evaluation of Applied De-escalation Tactics Train-the-Trainer Program for the Collaborative Reform Initiative Technical Assistance Center (CRI-TAC): Final Report. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Iyengar, R. (2007). Does the certainty of arrest reduce domestic violence? Evidence from mandatory and recommended arrest laws. Journal of Public Economics, 93(1–2), 85–98. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2008.04.005
Johnson, R. R., Stone, B. T., Miranda, C. M., Vila, B., James, L., James, S. M., … Berka, C. (2014). Identifying psychophysiological indices of expert vs. novice performance in deadly force judgment and decision making. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2014.00512
Kelling, G., Pate, T., Dieckman, D., & Brown, C. E. (1974). The Kansas City preventive patrol experiment. Washington, DC: National Policing Institute.
Lavoie, J., Álvarez, N., Baker, V., & Kohl, J. (2023). Training police to de-escalate mental health crisis situations: Comparing virtual reality and live-action scenario-based approaches. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 17(17). https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paad069
Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Gill, C., Hibdon, J., Telep, C. W., & Robinson, L. (2016). An evidence-assessment of the recommendations of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing—Implementation and research priorities. Alexandria: International Association of Chiefs of Police.
Maxwell, C. D., Garner, J. H., & Fagan, J. A. (2001). The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: New evidence from the spouse assault replication program. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/188199.pdf
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-013-9175-2
Mehari, K. R., Rodgers, C. R. R., Blanton, M. A., & Turner, L. A. (2021). Evaluation of a police training on de-escalation with trauma-exposed youth. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 66, 100491. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlcj.2021.100491
Muñoz, J. E., Lavoie, J. A., & Pope, A. T. (2024). Psychophysiological insights and user perspectives: enhancing police de-escalation skills through full-body VR training. Frontiers in Psychology, 15. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1390677
Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57(5), 691–697. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095922
Peel, R. (1829). The principles of law enforcement (as cited in Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H., 1988, The evolving strategy of policing, U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice).
Plato, G M A Grube, & C D C Reeve. (1992). Plato: Republic. London Hackett Publishing Company.
President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. (2015). Final report of the President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.
Rahr, S., & Rice, S. K. (2015). From warriors to guardians: Recommitting American police culture to democratic ideals (New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin, NCJ 248654). U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/248654.pdf
Regehr, C., & LeBlanc, V. R. (2017). PTSD, acute stress, performance, and decision-making in emergency service workers. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 45(2), 184–192.
Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49(2), 261–272.
https://doi.org/10.2307/2095576
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27(1), 27–56.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1989.tb00862.x
Sherman, L. W. (2013). The Rise of Evidence-Based Policing: Targeting, Testing, and Tracking. Crime and Justice, 42(1), 377–451. https://doi.org/10.1086/670819
Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J. D., Rogan, D. P., & Smith, D. A. (1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 83(1), 137–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/1143854
Sherman, L. W., & Harris, H. M. (2015). Increased death rates of domestic violence victims from arresting vs. warning suspects in the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment (MilDVE). Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-014-9213-4
Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., DuBois, J., Comey, J. T., Kaiser, M. & Lovig, J. H. (2000). Community policing in Chicago, years five and six: An interim report. National Institute of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/179556.pdf
Stone, H. M. (1982). The Exclusionary Rule Revisited: Good Faith in Fourth Amendment Search and Seizure. UKnowledge (University of Kentucky), 70(3), 11.
Todak, N., & James, L. (2018). A Systematic Social Observation Study of Police De-Escalation Tactics. Police Quarterly, 21(4), 509–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611118784007
Todak, N., & White, M. D. (2019). Expert officer perceptions of de-escalation in policing. Policing: An International Journal, 42(5), 832–846. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-12-2018-0185
Thacher, D. (2019). The Aspiration of Scientific Policing. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(1), 273–297. https://doi.org/10.1111/lsi.12367
The Gambia Hepatitis Study Group. (1987). The Gambia Hepatitis Intervention Study. Cancer Research, 47(21), 5782–5787.
Tyler, Tom R. 1988. “What Is Procedural Justice? Criteria Used by Citizens to Assess the Fairness of Legal Procedures.” Law and Society Review 22:103-35.
Tyler, T. (2017a). Procedural Justice and Policing: A Rush to Judgment? Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13(1), 29–53. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110316-113318
Tyler, T. (2017b). From harm reduction to community engagement: Redefining the goals of American policing in the 21st century. Northwestern Law Review, 111(5), 1537-1564.
Tyler, T. R. (2025). Legitimacy-based policing. Criminology & Public Policy, 24(2), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12695
United States Congress. (2022). Law Enforcement De-Escalation Training Act of 2022, Pub. L. No. 117-325, 136 Stat. 4441 (codified at 34 U.S.C. § 10101 note).
White, M. D., Orosco, C., & Watts, S. (2023a). Can police de-escalation training reduce use of force and citizen injury without compromising officer safety? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 21(1), 45–70. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09584-8
White, M. D., Orosco, C., & Watts, S. (2023b). Beyond force and injuries: Examining alternative (and important) outcomes for police De-escalation training. Journal of Criminal Justice, 89, 102129. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2023.102129
Wolfe, S. E., Mclean, K., Alpert, G. P., & Rojek, J. (2024). Us Versus Them? The Problem of Cognitive Distortions in Policing. Police Quarterly, 27(4), 532–560. https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111241234310
Yang, S.-M., Gill, C. E., Lu, Y.-F., Azam, M., & Kanewske, L. C. (2024). A police-clinician co-response team to people with mental illness in a suburban-rural community: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 21(2), 577–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-023-09603-8