Public perceptions of police behavior during traffic stops: logistic regression and machine learning approaches compared | Journal of Computational Social Science Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Public perceptions of police behavior during traffic stops: logistic regression and machine learning approaches compared

  • Research Article
  • Published:
Journal of Computational Social Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Prior research on citizen perceptions of police has taken a wide-angle lens approach to the topic, with only a few studies investigating public perceptions of particular types of citizen–police encounters. In the current study, we make use of archival data on police traffic stops drawn from four waves of the BJS police–public contact surveys (PPCS) conducted in 2005, 2008, 2011, and again in 2015. In addition to employing conventional logistic regression, we make use of random forest classification to analyze survey data from a machine learning perspective. We use conventional logistic regression as a tool of explanation and random forest classification as a tool of prediction. We compare the findings generated by these two distinct analytical approaches. Substantive findings are quite similar for the explanatory and forecasting approaches. Driver’s belief that a traffic stop is legitimate is a major factor in how he or she evaluates police behavior in traffic stops, and whether the police use or threaten force during traffic stops may be the second most important factor. We draw out the implications of our work for our understanding of traffic stop dynamics, for the theory of procedural justice, for the theory of negativity bias, and for the enhanced use of machine learning in criminal justice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
¥17,985 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price includes VAT (Japan)

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. When we discuss the conventional logistic regression model and the conventional regression models, we particularly refer to regression analyses used in criminal justice and criminology.

  2. The regression approaches used in criminal justice and criminology are different from the regression algorithms used in computer science. The most significant difference is that in CJ&C, datasets are not split into a test set and a training set. All cases are typically used in the analysis of large-N datasets.

References

  1. Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 25(3), 543–580.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Cao, L. (2015). Differentiating confidence in the police, trust in the police, and satisfaction with the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 38(2), 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Dai, M., & Johnson, R. R. (2009). Is neighborhood context a confounder? Exploring the effects of citizen race and neighborhood context on satisfaction with the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 32(4), 595–612.

    Google Scholar 

  4. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Murphy, K. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The importance of procedural justice and police performance in police-citizen encounters. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 42(2), 159–178.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experiences. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 343–365.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Gibson, C. L., Walker, S., Jennings, W. G., & Mitchell Miller, J. (2010). The impact of traffic stops on calling the police for help. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(2), 139–159.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Skolnick, J. H. (2007). Racial profiling-then and now. Criminology & Public Policy, 6, 65.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Stoutland, S. E. (2001). The multiple dimensions of trust in resident/police relations in Boston. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38(3), 226–256.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–282.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Batton, C., & Kadleck, C. (2004). Theoretical and methodological issues in racial profiling research. Police Quarterly, 7(1), 30–64.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Gaines, L. K. (2006). An analysis of traffic stop data in Riverside, California. Police Quarterly, 9(2), 210–233.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Petrocelli, M., Piquero, A. R., & Smith, M. R. (2003). Conflict theory and racial profiling: An empirical analysis of police traffic stop data. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31(1), 1–11.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Withrow, B. L. (2006). Racial profiling: From rhetoric to reason. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chenane, J. L., Wright, E. M., & Gibson, C. L. (2019). Traffic stops, race, and perceptions of fairness. Policing and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/10439463.2019.1587436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Berk, R. (2012). Criminal justice forecasts of risk: A machine learning approach. New York: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Shmueli, G. (2010). To explain or to predict? Statistical Science, 25(3), 289–310.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Breiman, L. (2001). Statistical modeling: The two cultures (with comments and a rejoinder by the author). Statistical Science, 16(3), 199–231.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Dai, M., & Jiang, X. (2016). A comparative study of satisfaction with the police in the United States and Australia. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 49(1), 30–52.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Dai, M., Hu, X., & Time, V. (2019). Understanding public satisfaction with the police: Military background and interactions between higher education and prior contact with the police. Policing: An International Journal, 42(4), 571–584.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Zhao, J. S., Tsai, C., Ren, L., & Lai, Y. (2014). Public satisfaction with police control of disorder crime: Does the public hold police accountable? Justice Quarterly, 31(2), 394–420.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wu, Y., Sun, I., & Triplett, R. (2009). Race, class, or neighborhood context: Which matters more in measuring satisfaction with police? Justice Quarterly, 26(1), 125–156.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Ivkovic, S. K. (2008). A comparative study of public support for the police. International Criminal Justice Review, 18(4), 406–434.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree, L. T. (2001). Coppin’ an attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 29(4), 295–305.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Berthelot, E. R., McNeal, B. A., & Baldwin, J. M. (2018). Relationships between agency-specific contact, victimization type, and trust and confidence in the police and courts. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(4), 768–791.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context, and confidence in the police. American Journal of Police, 15(1), 3–22.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Garcia, V., & Cao, L. (2005). Race and satisfaction with the police in a small city. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(2), 191–199.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with the police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607–630.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cao, L. (2014). Aboriginal people and confidence in the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 56(5), 499–526.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Cao, L. (2011). Visible minorities and confidence in the police. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 53(1), 1–26.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Han, Z., Sun, I. Y., & Hu, R. (2017). Social trust, neighborhood cohesion, and public trust in the police in China. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(2), 380–394.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Sun, I., Hu, R., & Wu, Y. (2012). Social capital, political participation, and trust in the police in urban China. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 45(1), 87–105.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Farnworth, M. (1998). Explaining juvenile’s attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15(1), 151–173.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Dunham, R. G., & Alpert, G. P. (1988). Neighborhood differences in attitudes toward policing: Evidence for a mixed-strategy model of policing in a multi-ethnic setting. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 79(2), 504–523.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural)? Tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law and Society Review, 32(4), 777–804.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Li, Y., Ren, L., & Luo, F. (2016). Is bad stronger than good? The impact of police-citizen encounters on public satisfaction with police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 39(1), 109–126.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in the police with the performance of the police: Community policing can make a difference. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(1), 55–66.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Hinds, L. (2009). Public satisfaction with police: The influence of general attitudes and police-citizen encounters. International Journal of Police Science and Management, 11(1), 54–66.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Wells, W. (2007). Type of contact and evaluations of police officers: The effects of procedural justice across three types of police-citizen contacts. Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(6), 612–621.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Walker, S., & Katz, C. (2018). The police in America: An introduction (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2003). Citizen perceptions of police services: Race, neighborhood context, and community policing. Police Quarterly, 6(4), 440–468.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Weitzer, R. (2002). Incidents of police misconduct and public opinion. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30(5), 397–408.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Gau, J. M. (2015). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and legal cynicism: A test for mediation effects. Police Practice and Research, 16(5), 402–415.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 84–99.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Dai, M., & Hu, X. (2020). Exploring the duration of police-citizen encounters. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice. https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paaa006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Dai, M., & Nation, D. (2009). Understanding non-coercive, procedurally fair behavior by the police during encounters. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 37(4), 170–181.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dai, M., Frank, J., & Sun, I. (2011). Procedural justice during police-citizen encounters: The effects of process-based policing on citizen compliance and demeanor. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(2), 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Skogan, W. G., Van Craen, M., & Hennessy, C. (2015). Training police for procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 319–334.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A study of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 27(2), 255–279.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Jonathan-Zamir, T., Mastrofski, S. D., & Moyal, S. (2015). Measuring procedural justice in police-citizen encounters. Justice Quarterly, 32(5), 845–871.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Elliott, I., Thomas, S., & Ogloff, J. (2014). Procedural justice in victim-police interactions and victims’ recovery from victimization experiences. Policing and Society, 24(5), 588–601.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Bradford, B. (2011). Voice, neutrality and respect: Use of victim support services, procedural fairness and confidence in the criminal justice system. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 11(4), 345–366.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Davis, E., Whyde, A., & Langton, L. (2018). Contacts between police and the public, 2015. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Available at https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp15.pdf (last accessed April 15, 2019).

  56. Mbuba, J. M. (2010). Attitudes toward the police: The significance of race and other factors among college students. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 8(3), 201–215.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Pierson, E., Simoiu, C., Overgoor, J., Corbett-Davies, S., Ramachandran, V., Phillips, C., & Goel, S. (2017). A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States. arXiv preprint arXiv:1706.05678.

  58. Goel, S., Perelman, M., Shroff, R., & Sklansky, D. A. (2017). Combatting police discrimination in the age of big data. New Criminal Law Review: In International and Interdisciplinary Journal, 20(2), 181–232.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Roh, S., & Robinson, M. (2009). A geographic approach to racial profiling: The microanalysis and macroanalysis of racial disparity in traffic stops. Police Quarterly, 12(2), 137–169.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., & Smith, M. R. (2007). Investigating racial profiling by the Miami-Dade Police Department: A multimethod approach. Criminology & Public Policy, 6(1), 25–55.

    Google Scholar 

  61. Engel, R. S., & Calnon, J. M. (2004). Examining the influence of drivers’ characteristics during traffic stops with police: Results from a national survey. Justice Quarterly, 21(1), 49–90.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Hu, X., Rodgers, K., & Lovrich, N. (2020). Public preferences toward police Facebook posts: A macro-level analysis. Police Practice and Research: An International Journal, 21(3), 227–245.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Hu, X., Wu, J., DeValve, M. J., & Fisher, B. S. (2020). Exploring violent crime reporting among school-age victims: Findings from NCVS SCS 2005–2015. Victims & Offenders, 15(2), 141–158.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Amrhein, V., Greenland, S., & McShane, B. (2019). Retire statistical significance. Nature, 567, 305–307.

    Google Scholar 

  65. Harrell, F. E., Jr. (2015). Regression modeling strategies: With applications to linear models, logistic and ordinal regression, and survival analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  66. Berk, R. (2003). Regression analysis: A constructive critique. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  67. Rudin, C. (2019). Stop explaining black box machine learning models for high stake decisions and use interpretable models instead. Nature Machine Intelligence, 1, 206–215.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Steyerberg, E. W., & van der Ploeg., T., & Van Calster, B., (2014). Risk prediction with machine learning and regression methods. Biometrical Journal, 56(4), 601–606.

    Google Scholar 

  69. Provost, F., & Kohavi, R. (1998). Glossary of terms. Journal of Machine Learning, 30(2–3), 271–274.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Russell, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2016). Artificial intelligence: A modern approach. Malaysia: Pearson Education Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Warner, R. M. (2013). Applied statistics: From bivariate through multivariate techniques (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Berk, R. (2017). An impact assessment of machine learning risk forecasts on parole board decisions and recidivism. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 13(2), 193–216.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Berk, R., & Bleich, J. (2014). Forecasts of violence to inform sentencing decisions. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30(1), 79–96.

    Google Scholar 

  74. Duwe, G., & Kim, K. (2017). Out with the old and in with the new? An empirical comparison of supervised learning algorithms to predict recidivism. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28(6), 570–600.

    Google Scholar 

  75. Hu, X., Zhang, X., & Lovrich, N. (2020). Forecasting identity theft victims: Analyzing characteristics and preventive actions through machine learning approaches. Victims & Offenders. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2020.1806161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Neuilly, M. A., Zgoba, K. M., Tita, G. E., & Lee, S. S. (2011). Predicting recidivism in homicide offenders using classification tree analysis. Homicide studies, 15(2), 154–176.

    Google Scholar 

  77. Berk, R. A., Kriegler, B., & Baek, J. H. (2006). Forecasting dangerous inmate misconduct: An application of ensemble statistical procedures. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 22(2), 131–145.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Berk, R. A., Sorenson, S. B., & Barnes, G. (2016). Forecasting domestic violence: A machine learning approach to help inform arraignment decisions. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 13(1), 94–115.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Manning, M., Wong, G. T., Graham, T., Ranbaduge, T., Christen, P., Taylor, K., et al. (2018). Towards a ‘smart’cost–benefit tool: using machine learning to predict the costs of criminal justice policy interventions. Crime Science, 7(1), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  80. Carriquiry, A., Hofmann, H., Tai, X., & VanderPlas, S. (2019). Machine learning in forensic applications. Significance, 16, 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-9713.2019.01252.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Liao, S., Xiao, J., Xie, Y., & Gu, F. (2017, April). Towards use of electronic health records: Cancer classification. In Proceedings of the symposium on modeling and simulation in medicine (p. 4). Society for Computer Simulation International.

  82. Quinlan, J. R. (1986). Induction of decision trees. Machine Learning, 1(1), 81–106.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Alpaydin, E. (2020). Introduction to machine learning. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Murphy, K. P. (2012). Machine learning: A probabilistic perspective. Cambridge: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  85. Rokach, L., & Maimon, O. Z. (2008). Data mining with decision trees: Theory and applications (Vol. 69). Singapore: World Scientific.

    Google Scholar 

  86. Menze, B. H., Kelm, B. M., Masuch, R., Himmelreich, U., Bachert, P., Petrich, W., et al. (2009). A comparison of random forest and its Gini importance with standard chemometric methods for the feature selection and classification of spectral data. BMC Bioinformatics, 10(1), 213.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Marsland, S. (2015). Machine learning: An algorithmic perspective. Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Breiman, L. (1996). Bagging predictors. Machine learning, 24(2), 123–140.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Zhang, H., & Wang, M. (2009). Search for the smallest random forest. Statistics and Its Interface, 2(3), 381.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Palczewska, A., Palczewski, J., Robinson, R. M., & Neagu, D. (2014). Interpreting random forest classification models using a feature contribution method. In Integration of reusable systems (pp. 193–218). Springer, Cham.

  91. Amit, Y., & Geman, D. (1997). Shape quantization and recognition with randomized trees. Neural Computation, 9(7), 1545–1588.

    Google Scholar 

  92. McCarney, R., Warner, J., Iliffe, S., Van Haselen, R., Griffin, M., & Fisher, P. (2007). The Hawthorne effect: A randomized, controlled trial. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7(1), 30.

    Google Scholar 

  93. Menard, S. (2004). Six approaches to calculating standardized logistic regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 58(3), 218–223.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Bradley, A. P. (1997). The use of the area under the ROC curve in the evaluation of machine learning algorithms. Pattern Recognition, 30(7), 1145–1159.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Fawcett, T. (2006). An introduction to ROC analysis. Pattern Recognition Letters, 27(8), 861–874.

    Google Scholar 

  96. Rozin, P., & Royzman, E. B. (2001). Negativity bias, negativity dominance, and contagion. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(4), 296–320.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Skogan, W. G. (2006). Asymmetry in the impact of encounters. Police Quarterly, 16(2), 99–126.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Zeng, J., Ustun, B., & Rudin, C. (2017). Interpretable classification models for recidivism prediction. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 180(3), 689–722.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Dey, A. (2016). Machine learning algorithms: A review. International Journal of Computer Science and Information Technologies, 7(3), 1174–1179.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Berk, R. (2009). The role of race in forecasts of violent crime. Race and Social Problems, 1(4), 231.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Goel, S., Rao, J. M., & Shroff, R. (2016). Precinct or prejudice? Understanding racial disparities in New York City’s stop-and-frisk policy. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 10(1), 365–394.

    Google Scholar 

  102. Pierson, E., Corbett-Davies, S., & Goel, S. (2017). Fast threshold tests for detecting discrimination. arXiv preprint arXiv:1702.08536.

  103. Goel, S., Rao, J. M., & Shroff, R. (2016). Personalized risk assessments in the criminal justice system. American Economic Review, 106(5), 119–123.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Babyak, M. A. (2004). What you see may not be what you get: A brief, nontechnical introduction to overfitting in regression-type models. Psychosomatic Medicine, 66(3), 411–421.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 27–42.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC, USA

    Xiaochen Hu

  2. Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York, NY, USA

    Xudong Zhang

  3. Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA

    Nicholas Lovrich

Authors
  1. Xiaochen Hu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Xudong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Nicholas Lovrich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Xiaochen Hu.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendices

Appendix A: Decision tree part 1 (left part)

figure a

Appendix B: Decision tree part 2 (right part)

figure b

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hu, X., Zhang, X. & Lovrich, N. Public perceptions of police behavior during traffic stops: logistic regression and machine learning approaches compared. J Comput Soc Sc 4, 355–380 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00079-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-020-00079-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation