Multi-tasking Behaviors of General Duty Police Officers

Transcription

1 Police Practice and Research, Vol. 6, No. 1, March 2005, pp Multi-tasking Behaviors of General Duty Police Officers G. S. Anderson, A. Courtney, D. Plecas & C. Chamberlin GPPR sgm / Police Original 2005 Taylor March Dr. Criminology DarryB.Plecas Practice & and Article Francis (print)/ x and 2005 and Criminal Ltd Ltd Research Justice33844 (online) King RoadAbbotsfordBC V2S 7M8Canada The purpose of the present study was to examine the multi-tasking behaviors of general duty police officers, using driving a motor vehicle as the primary task. Fifty-five percent of the officers were observed performing at least one other task while driving, and 7% of officers were observed using their mobile data terminal (MDT) while driving and handling another object simultaneously. Our results indicate that the ability to perform the bona fide occupational requirements of a police officer will require the individual to be able to effectively process information, and multi-task. To reduce the performance decrements that occur while multi-tasking, adequate time and attention must be paid to the training of the individual tasks prior to performing them in combination. Keywords: Driving; Mobile Data Terminal; Attention; Performance Introduction The word multi-tasking implies performing two or more pieces of work simultaneously such as driving while talking on the radio. Using such a simplistic approach, it would seem obvious that police officers multi-task during the regular course of their duties. It would also seem obvious that multi-tasking is not a matter of choice for police officers, but is imposed upon them by the situational demands of the job. The demands of some aspects of their work would seem to require that they multitask frequently and do it with a certain amount of skill. It is difficult to imagine, for example, how a police officer attempting to control and handcuff a resisting suspect would not commonly be required to engage in some amount of multi-tasking (including both physical and verbal control tactics, and inter-officer communication). It is also difficult to imagine that police officers could simply drive their patrol cars without ever having to do other tasks at the same time. No doubt, most police Correspondence to: Dr Darryl Plecas, Head, Criminology and Criminal Justice, University College of the Fraser Valley, King Road, Abbotsford, BC V2S 7M8, Canada. plecasd@ucfv.bc.ca ISSN print/issn X online/05/ Taylor & Francis Group Ltd DOI: /

2 40 G. S. Anderson et al. officers can recall a time while driving at night, when they were looking for an address, listening and talking on their radio, handling a flashlight or spotlight, and looking down at their mobile data terminal (MDT essentially an in car laptop computer mounted between the driver and passenger seats) all at the same time or in rapid succession. Some officers will recall doing all of these tasks while steering with one knee and typing on their MDT. Apparently though, not everyone has agreed that police work involves multi-tasking. In fact, the notion that it does was challenged recently in a lawsuit against a municipal police department in British Columbia. The lawsuit drew attention to the not so obvious nature of multi-tasking and the fact that it has not been identified as a bona fide occupational requirement of general duty police work. Specifically, the lawsuit involved the claim that while certain activities may look like multi-tasking at first glance, they are really a group of activities done in succession. The lawsuit went on to add that it was debatable as to whether or not all parts of a sequence had to be performed as quickly as police administrators assumed was necessary. The police department involved was in an awkward situation because, at the time, it had no documentation citing multi-tasking as a bona fide occupational requirement. The lawsuit was ultimately settled out of court. This suggests that the question of whether or not police officers are required to multi-task needs to be addressed. Problem Statement The purpose of the present study was to investigate the multi-tasking behaviors of police officers engaged in the execution of their normal duties, and in particular, examine the use of the MDT in the police cruiser. Observational data were used in the present study, drawn from a previous data-set examining the physical requirements of general duty police work (Anderson, Plecas, & Segger, 2001). While that study did not consider multi-tasking directly, data collected included the number of minutes per shift officers spent using a MDT while driving and simultaneously performing other physical tasks. This data allows for an examination of multi-tasking behaviors of police officers while driving a motor vehicle. Review of Literature Increases in technology, and specifically in the area of wireless communications, has allowed for flexibility in information transmission, particularly as it applies to location. Telephone conversation, fax transmission, and computer operation are now possible from the convenience of the motor vehicle. With this increase in spatial flexibility for communication, many drivers now engage in multi-tasking behaviors, defined here as performing more than one task simultaneously. Understanding multi-tasking performance requires an examination of human information processing, which is based on attentional capacity. While multi-tasking research is relatively new, attention has been the focus of an extensive research endeavor since the late 1800s (James, 1890). Multiple definitions of attention have

3 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 41 emerged over this time. For example, Magill (2001) defined attention as the conscious or non-conscious engagement in perceptual cognitive, and/or motor activities before, during, and after performing skill (p. 117). Cox (1998), in taking a more restrictive view, defined attention as the product of automatic processes that selectively directs thinking and behavior without conscious awareness (p. 55). In a classical definition, William James in 1890 defined attention as the taking possession by the mind, in clear and vivid form, of one out of what seems several simultaneously possible objects or trains of thought. Focalization, concentration, of consciousness, are of its essence (pp ). Although not completely in agreement, attention is in common terms viewed as a capacity or capability that allows information to be processed for the performance of cognitive and/or motor activities. Critical to the understanding of multi-tasking behaviors is that attention is viewed as a restricted capacity system that places limits on human performance. Theories of Attention Essentially, two categories of attention theories exist. The first, referred to as central resource capacity theories, proposes that a single central resource or pool of attention is available to the individual (e.g., Kahneman, 1973). All tasks would access the same resource to allow for efficient information processing and effective performance. The amount of resource available at any one time is flexible and determined by personal, task, and situational characteristics. Multi-tasking performance is possible as long as the total resource required for all tasks does not exceed available capacity. A controllable shift occurs with attention demands to ensure that the best fit is found for allocating the available resource, enabling a discretionary allocation of resources towards concurrent tasks. Interference between tasks, resulting in performance decrements, is nonspecific, and depends only on the (combined) demands of both the tasks (Kahneman, 1973, p. 11). The second category of theories is referred to as multiple resource models (e.g., Wickens, 1992). In these theories, attention is viewed as a distributed set of resource pools, each with their own unique capacity and resource performance relationship. In Wickens (1992) model, resource pools are formed as sub-cells that result from the interaction of three dimensions input/output modality (auditory/visual, manual/ vocal), processing codes (spatial/verbal), and stage of information processing (encoding, central processing, responding). Success of multi-tasking performance results from the extent to which competing tasks simultaneously tap into the same resource pool. According to multiple resources models (Wickens, 1992) the ability to multi-task depends on the demands placed on attention and which pool the demands originate from. If the demands come from the same pool, the tasks will be performed less well, and if the demands come from different pools, task performance is unaffected. For example, talking and driving can take place simultaneously as they demand different pools of attention, but performing two motor tasks, such as driving while typing on the MDT or handling an object (e.g., radio or telephone), is more challenging because

4 42 G. S. Anderson et al. these tasks demand similar pools of attention. Using this theory, one would predict more motor vehicle accidents to occur while dialling a cell phone as compared to merely talking on a cell phone. In fact, Redelmeier and Tibshirani (1997) found that the risk of being involved in a motor vehicle accident while talking on a cell phone was four times higher than when not using the phone. This research suggests that performance decrements result from multi-tasking behavior. These decrements appear to occur due to limitations in information processing capabilities, not as a result of motor output interference. Methods The analysis of multi-tasking provided here is based on data collected through a study of the physical requirements of police work. One component of that study involved full-shift ride-a-longs with 121 randomly selected police officers from all municipal police departments in British Columbia. During the ride-a-longs research assistants observed the activities of each officer and recorded those observations on minute-by-minute tracking sheets. Data were collected on as many as 720 minutes per 12-hour shifts with as many as 49 different activity categories, and on as many as nine activities per minute. Among the 49 activities observed and recorded were driving normally and at different code levels, using a MDT, using a cell phone, talking, handling the radio and other objects, and writing (Anderson et al., 2001). For the present study the analysis of data focused on an examination of the percentage of officers who engaged in other activity simultaneous to using their MDT while driving. Further, the number of minutes each officer spent during their shift performing these combined activities was examined, while exploring the differences in MDT use between male and female officers. Results Using MDT use while driving as an example, there is no question that police officers multi-task. Indeed, the analysis of ride-a-long data revealed that the vast majority of officers (i.e., 77%) were using their MDT while driving. Forty percent used their MDT while driving on an assigned Code 1 or Code 2 call, and 9% did so while driving backup to a Code 1 or Code 2 call. As well, officers were observed doing other tasks in the course of using their MDT while driving. Specifically, 55% were observed doing at least one other task, and 11% were observed doing at least two other tasks simultaneous to their using a MDT while driving. Notably, 7% of officers were observed triple pooling using their MDT while driving (i.e., drawing from the same neuronal pool as described previously), while handling another object simultaneously (see Table 1). Not only did the analysis reveal that the large majority of officers use their MDTs while driving, it showed that those who do, spend a significant amount of time using their MDT while driving and performing at least one other task. Specifically, the analysis showed that these officers spent an average of 17.5 minutes during the shift

5 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 43 Table 1 Percentage of Officers Observed Using their Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) while Driving during Shift Male Female Combined Circumstance n = 95 n = 26 n = 121 Percentage who used their MDT during shift Percentage who used their MDT while driving Percentage who used their MDT while driving Code 1 or Code (assigned) Percentage who used their MDT while driving Code 1 or Code a (back-up) Percentage who used their MDT while driving and doing at least one other task Percentage who used their MDT while driving and doing at least a two other tasks Percentage who used their MDT while driving and triple pooling a a Gender difference significant to 0.01 level. using their MDT while driving. On average, these officers spent 3.5 of that 17.5 minutes using their MDT while driving to assigned Code 1 or Code 2 calls, and 3.1 minutes driving back-up to Code 1 or Code 2 calls. Further, officers who used their MDT while driving spent an average of 4.8 minutes doing at least one other task simultaneously, while spending 1.5 minutes doing at least two other tasks, and 1.8 minutes performing three tasks that require attention resources from the same pool triple pooling (see Table 2). Differences between male and female officers use of their MDTs were observed. As Table 1 indicates, while there were no differences between male and female officers in terms of the percentage of each who used their MDT during the shift and while driving, a significantly greater percentage of female officers used their MDT while driving backup to Code 1 or Code 2 calls. Further, a significantly greater percentage of female officers were observed doing at least two other tasks simultaneous to their using their MDT while driving and nearly 24% of them (vs. only 3% of male officers) were observed triple pooling. Further, female officers who used their MDTs during their shift, did so for a significantly greater number of minutes. Specifically, female officers used their MDT on average for 79.7 minutes during the shift while male officers did so for 49.3 minutes. As Table 2 indicates, female officers also spent a significantly greater time using their MDT while driving. One of the most interesting findings of the analysis was that use of MDTs appears to be something that is more often than not associated with multi-tasking, whether driving or parked. Specifically, as Table 3 shows, officers were multi-tasking 84% of the time they were using their MDTs. That is, simultaneous to using their MDT, they were either writing, handling an object, driving, using a cell phone or their radio, or talking to a suspect or another officer (or any combination of these activities). As the table shows, 32% of the time they were driving while using their MDT and 5% of the time

6 44 G. S. Anderson et al. Table 2 Average Number of Minutes Officers Used their Mobile Data Terminal (MDT) while Driving during Shift Male Female Combined Circumstances b n = 95 n = 26 n = 121 Minutes worked during shift Minutes driving during shift Minutes spent using MDT a Minutes spent using MDT while driving a Minutes spent using MDT while driving Code 1 or Code (assigned) Minutes spent using MDT while driving Code 1 or Code (back-up) Minutes spent using MDT while driving and simultaneously doing at least one other task Minutes spent using MDT while driving and simultaneously doing at least two other tasks Minutes spent using MDT while driving and triple pooling a Gender difference is statistically significant at the 0.01 level. b Data refer only to officers who used their MDT for at least some period of time under the circumstance referred to. It does not represent the average number of minutes for officers overall. they were doing this and something else. Less than one-half of 1% of the time they were doing two other activities and equally as infrequently, they were triple pooling using their MDTs while driving. Still, the point is that on average they do multi-task at very sophisticated levels at least some percentage of the time. Discussion Research demonstrates that humans are capable of multi-tasking behaviors, but the degree of performance success is related to the available resource for attention and the Table 3 Percentage of Time Officers were Observed Multi-tasking while Using their Mobile Data Terminals (MDTs) during Shift Male Female Combined Circumstance n = 95 n = 26 n = 121 Percentage of MDT use which involved multi-tasking Percentage of MDT use which involved driving Percentage of MDT use which involved driving and at least one other task simultaneously Percentage of MDT use which involved driving and at least two <1 <1 <1 other tools simultaneously Percentage of MDT use which involved driving and triple pooling <1 <1 <1

7 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 45 attention costs of the activities. Resources and costs are determined by a complex array of factors, notably arousal levels, age, and stage of learning. Police officers, due to the nature of their occupation, would appear to have the need to multi-task frequently during the course of their work shifts. Success at this activity would result from the officer s attentional resource capacity coupled with the attentional costs of the activities that are being performed. Theories on attention and attentional capacity have examined the restricted nature of attention. Some theories suggested a bottleneck in the information processing system (Abernethy, 2001; Logan & Gordon, 2001) or a limited availability of resources (Logan & Gordon, 2001). Wickens (1992) proposed a multiple-resource theory of attention with three distinct resource pools that include input/ output modality (auditory/visual, manual/vocal), processing codes (spatial/verbal), and stage of information processing (encoding, central processing, responding). The allocation of resources to each system would depend on the required task (Abernethy, 2001; Magill, 2001). Being able to multi-task would depend on the nature of the demands of attention and the pool the demands originate from. Performance decrements during multi-taking would occur when the attention demands were from the same pool, as can be demonstrated by the difficulty in simultaneously rubbing your head and patting your stomach. Further limitations to multi-tasking are imposed by high levels of arousal, affecting the ability to attend to the vital information being presented in the environment. Applying Wickens (1992) theory to the present data would suggest that 55% of the officers observed could be expected to have performance decrements as were observed driving and using the MDT while performing at least one other task. Further, 11% of the officers were observed doing at least two other tasks simultaneous to their using a MDT while driving. From this data, 7% of officers were found to perform three tasks drawing from the same pool of resources, using their MDT while driving while handling another object simultaneously. It is this group of officers which would be expected to have the largest performance decrement in any (or all three) of the tasks being performed. Regardless of the theoretical framework, several factors have been proposed that may modify the attention performance relationship and impact on successful multitasking behaviors. A number of studies using both learning (e.g., Damos, Bittner, Kennedy, & Harbeson, 1981; Spelke, Hirst, & Neisser, 1976) and expert/novice (Leavitt, 1979; Parker, 1981; Smith & Chamberlin, 1992) paradigms have indicated that multi-task performance can improve with practice. It is not exactly clear why this occurs. Several possibilities have been suggested in the literature, and include: 1. a reduction in resource needed to perform one, or more, of the multi-tasking activities as a result of a shift in control processes from conscious to automatic processing (e.g., Schneider & Shiffron, 1977; Shiffron & Schneider, 1977); 2. maximizing resource pool availability through optimal arousal control (Kahneman, 1973); 3. more effective information processing behavior, which may include time-sharing or attentional switching strategies, or spreading the processing requirements across different resources (e.g., Allport, 1980).

8 46 G. S. Anderson et al. Although learning results in improved multi-tasking behavior, it has been pointed out that learning, as a process, is attention demanding and that engaging in multi-tasking behavior during learning can be detrimental to subsequent performance levels. In particular, a division of attention during the encoding process in memory formation can result in negative performance artifacts (Musen & Viola, 2000; Naveh-Benjamin, Craik, Perreta, & Tonev, 2000; Salthouse, Fristoe, Lineweaver, & Coon, 1995; Schmitter-Edgecombe, 1999). Therefore, if subjects are engaged in the execution of a concurrent, attention-demanding task when items are available for inspection and encoding, their subsequent performance on a task will be much lower than if full attention had been given to that task while learning (Isingrini, Vazou, & Leroy, 1995). This implies that tasks that must be performed in a combined manner should be acquired in isolation initially, perhaps to the point of automaticity, before performing and practicing tasks concurrently. If subjects are engaged in a concurrent attention-demanding task when items are available for inspection and encoding, their subsequent performance on a task will be much lower than if full attention had been given while learning (Isingrini et al., 1995). This would suggest that both driving and MDT use should be mastered separately before being performed in combination. All mechanical operations (driving, MDT, and radio use) should be mastered in isolation with automated responses that require little attention resource allocation. Once automated, the tasks should be gradually introduced in combination, and practiced in the performance environment. The boundaries for attentional resources required for optimal performance depends on a number of factors. For example, if the task is a newly acquired or difficult task, the boundaries for attentional capacity are smaller, and the task performance will be poorer if boundaries are stressed. A well-learned or simple task, on the other hand, would allow for more flexible boundaries (Abernethy, 2001). Practice allows the organization, shaping, and reduction of the attentional demands of one or both tasks (by processing the task automatically), the development of new time-sharing and attentional switching strategies (that reduce inter-task interference, and produces a more economical way of functioning), and increase the availability of capacity or resources through optimization of arousal. For this reason, adequate time and effort must go into recruit training, even for the simplest of tasks (e.g., handling the radio). The introduction of a new technology or procedure without adequate training experience may result in placing the police officer at risk during the execution of their duties. Summary A number of theories have been proposed to explain the application of attention to skilled behavior; in general, attention has been identified as a resource that can be applied to information processing. Performing a task effectively would have a particular attention cost associated with that task. If the resource available to the individual is sufficient to meet the costs of performance, then task performance should result in an optimal level parallel to the individual s capabilities. However, if the attention cost of performance exceeds available resource, performance will suffer.

9 Police Practice and Research: An International Journal 47 This paper demonstrates, using driving as the base activity, that 77% of police officers observed performed multi-tasking during their shift. Further, 55% were found to drive, use the MDT, and perform at least one other task simultaneously for on average 4.8 minutes a shift. Of significance, 7% of the officers performed multi-tasking behaviors that required the use of the same attentional resources during which a performance decrement in any one task (or all three) is expected. Conclusion The ability to perform the bona fide occupational requirements of a police officer will require the individual to be able to effectively process information, and multi-task. The present research demonstrates the need to pay attention to the multi-tasking requirements of policing, specifically those occurring during driving. The demands on the motor control of multiple tasks put strain on one pool of attention resources and may lead to performance decrements. To reduce the decrements that occur, adequate time and attention must be paid to the training of the individual tasks prior to performing them in combination. This will have implications for the training of new recruits and incumbents who are introduced to new technologies. References Abernethy, B. (2001). Attention. In R. N. Singer, H. A. Hausenblas, & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of sports psychology (pp ). New York: John Wiley. Allport, D. A. (1980). Attention and performance. In G. Claxton (Ed.), New directions in cognitive psychology (pp ). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Anderson, G. S., Plecas, D., & Segger, T. (2001). Police officer physical abilities testing: Re-validating a selection criteria. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 24(1), Cox, R. (1998). Sport psychology: Concepts and applications (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Damos, D. L., Bittner, A. C., Kennedy, R. S., & Harbeson, M. M. (1981). Effects of extended practice on dual-task tracking performance. Human Factors, 23, Isingrini, M., Vazou, F., & Leroy, P. (1995). Dissociation of implicit and explicit memory tests: Effect of age and divided attention on category exemplar generation and cued recall. Memory and Cognition, 23, James, W. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York: Holt. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Leavitt, J. L. (1979). Cognitive demands of skating and stick handling in ice hockey. Canadian Journal of Applied Sport Sciences, 4, Logan, D., & Gordon, R. (2001). Executive control of visual attention in dual-task situations. Psychology Review, 10(2), Magill, R. A. (2001). Motor learning: Concepts and applications (6th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill. Musen, G., & Viola, J. (2000). Attentional requirements of object-location priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 7, Naveh-Benjamin, M., Craik, F., Perreta, J., & Tonev, S. (2000). The effect of divided attention on encoding and retrieval processes: The resiliency of retrieval processes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53A, Parker, H. (1981). Visual detection and perception in netball. In I. M. Cockerill & W. W. MacGillivary (Eds.), Vision and sport (pp ). London: Stanley Thornes.

10 48 G. S. Anderson et al. Redelmeier, C., & Tibshirani, R. (1997). Association between cellular telephone calls and motor vehicle collisions. New England Journal of Medicine, 336, Salthouse, R., Fristoe, N., Lineweaver, T., & Coon, V. (1995). Aging of attention: Does the ability to divide decline? Memory and Cognition, 23, Schmitter-Edgecombe, M. (1999). Effects of divided attention on perceptual and conceptual memory tests: An analysis using a process-dissociation approach. Memory and Cognition, 27, Schneider, W., & Shiffron, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, Shiffron, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, Smith, M. D., & Chamberlin, C. J. (1992). Effect of adding cognitively demanding tasks on soccer performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 75, Spelke, E., Hirst, W., & Neisser, U. (1976). Skills of divided attention. Cognition, 4, Wickens, C. D. (1992). Engineering psychology and human performance (2nd ed.). New York: Harper- Collins.

11