Force Science Forum

A medium for the delivery of the research conducted or supported by the Force
Science Research Center, Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Selective attention, commonly referred to in law enforcement as tunnel vision and

tunnel hearing, plays a very significant role in an officer’s perception, performance,
and memory in a high stress encounter. An aspect of this phenomenon that the
Force Science Research Center (FSRC) at Minnesota State University, Mankato, is
interested in researching is the officer’s attentional responses and the impact of that
on the ability of an officer to effectively multi-task—particularly in a life and death
encounter. Clinical investigation has informed us that the emotional response of
an officer has a high degree of relevance on the officer’s attention and then on the
ability of an officer to both engage in life-saving behavior and simultaneously give
meaningful and relevant commands in an attempt to control a threatening subject.
The observations have also led us to hypothesize that the more an officer perceives
that he or she has control of a situation, the more he or she is capable of giving
relevant, meaningful commands. The less control he or she perceives that he or she
has over a situation and the more threatening the situation is, the less relevant and
meaningful the officer’s commands are as his or her attention becomes focused on
the need to engage in life-saving action to stop the threat. This article is the first
in a series that FSRC will present as this phenomenon is explored and the most
effective types of responses and the most effective commands for officers in high
stress, life-threatening encounters are sought.

This article is the first in a series that FSRC will present as this phenomenon is
explored and the most effective types of responses and the most effective commands
for officers in high stress, life-threatening encounters are sought.

Command Types Used in Police

Encounters
Emily N. Schwarzkopf, MA, Clinical Psychology, Minnesota State University,
Mankato
Daniel D. Houlihan, PhD, Professor, Clinical Psychology, Minnesota State
University, Mankato
Kari Kolb, Doctoral student, Clinical Psychology, Miami University, Ohio
William Lewinski, PhD, Professor, Law Enforcement, Minnesota State
University, Mankato
Jeffrey Buchanan, PhD, Assistant Professor, Clinical Psychology,
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Angela Christenson, Master’s student, Clinical Psychology, Minnesota State
University, Mankato

Police officers regularly encounter situations in which escalating emotion can lead
to hostility or violence between law enforcement and potential suspects. These

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 99

situations can quickly become dangerous for both the individuals involved as well as
bystanders. In order to increase public safety and officer effectiveness, it is necessary
to investigate and minimize the factors that contribute to antagonistic encounters
between law enforcement and potential suspects. Certain communication styles
and tactics may be more effective than others in eliciting immediate compliance
and decreasing violence (Thompson, 1983). Likewise, a failure to communicate
clearly and concisely has been shown in certain circumstances to exacerbate
negative interactions (Forehand & McMahon, 1981). Although police behavior has
been researched, an investigation of specific commands used by police has not yet
been conducted (Bayley & Bittner, 1984; Bayley & Garofalo, 1989; Johnson, 2004;
Reiss, 1971; Thompson, 1983).

In addition to command types, Johnson (2004) has noted that certain communication
styles may be more appeasing to potential suspects than others. Johnson also
states that citizens who felt treated fairly were more likely to comply with the law.
Factors such as respect, tone, and demeanor of an officer’s verbal communication
are important factors in reducing violence and increasing compliance (see also
Reiss, 1971).

In studies evaluating compliance, researchers have consistently found that the

clarity or feasibility of commands are important elements in eliciting compliance
to demands (Bertsch, 1999). After a literature review of the studies looking at these
components, Bertsch categorized commands into eight types. She further broke
each type into alpha and beta command subtypes in order to distinguish between
specific, feasible commands (i.e., alpha), and vague, unfeasible commands (i.e., beta)
consistent with Peed, Roberts, and Forehand (1977). Bertsch studied the effects of
these 16 command types and subtypes within the context of student compliance
in a classroom setting. The command types included interrogation, question,
regular, indirect, stop, don’t, negative, and other. This identification of command
types has not yet extended into the law enforcement literature, which is surprising
given the abundance of police forces in various countries and cultures, and the
importance placed on compliance with police commands. Bertsch’s review and
subsequent study showed clear and striking benefits to using concise and specific
alpha commands. There has not been a study in the compliance literature to date
which has shown any advantage to using nonspecific beta commands in an effort
to elicit compliance.

Thompson (1983) investigated communication styles used by police officers.

Thompson’s communication research focused on the use of an impartial
perspective, which was achieved through evaluation of the facts (who, what, when,
where, how) and an evaluation of the purpose of each encounter. Thompson also
focused on using language appropriate to each individual and to appeal to the
emotions, reasoning, and character of potential suspects. Johnson’s (2004) study
showed significant public support for specific and general aspects of Thompson’s
verbal judo during traffic stops. However, participant input was not obtained for
additional and specific verbal commands. Additionally, Bayley and Bittner (1984)
and Bayley and Garofalo (1989) described and evaluated police behavior, which
involved both physical and verbal behavior. Specific command types were not
investigated, however.

100 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

Mastrofski, Snipes, and Supina (1996) investigated a number of components related
to compliance in officer-citizen interactions. No major differences in compliance
rates were noted by Mastrofski et al. among requests issued by officers for citizens
to leave another citizen alone, calm down and stop the disorder, and cease illegal
behavior. They also studied the use of authoritativeness or force in both police
entry and requests. Police entry refers to the style of the initial verbal approach
with the suspect, including friendly/nonthreatening interrogation, command/
threat, and force categories. Experimenters found only the force entry tactic to be
significantly different in eliciting compliance, actually producing less compliance.
Investigators also found that officers exhibiting the most authoritative entry
tactics were least likely to gain compliance. Additionally, Mastrofski et al. found
no significant differences in compliance among the request categories, including
suggestions and requests, persuasion and negotiation, and commands and threats.
It was noted, however, that greater police experience was associated with a greater
likelihood of making commands and threats and a reduced likelihood of making
suggestions and requests.

One element that was investigated in Mastrofski et al.’s (1996) study was defined
as coercive balance of power, which included elements such as the number of officers
present, the use of a weapon, and the sex of the officer. The presence of male officers
and higher numbers of officers were less likely to lead to compliance, although
only the number of officers was significant. These findings are counterintuitive,
and they make a clear case for further investigation.

Mastrofski et al. (1996) also evaluated the type of problem behavior categorized
as traffic, minor offense, drugs, and serious. The more serious the offenses in this
study, the lower the likelihood of compliance. Researchers also found race to be
a factor in compliance with officer requests. Results indicated that White officers
were more likely to produce compliance with minority citizens and minority
officers were least likely to elicit compliance with White citizens. Additional results
suggested that males were more likely to comply than females.

Mastrofski et al.’s (1996) research only included commands which were

unambiguous, excluding indirect and beta commands altogether. Current
literature lacks research on the use of specific command types based on form
and feasibility. No information is yet available on how command type relates to
violence, compliance, or latency of response.

The current study will expand upon the research of Mastrofski et al. (1996) by
evaluating differences in Bertsch’s command types across suspect compliance,
latency, violence, and type of crime in law enforcement/suspect exchanges. Due
to the negative connotation associated with interrogation in law enforcement,
for the purpose of this study, the interrogation command type will be re-termed
interview.

Method

Data Collection
Data from police interactions were accessed via prerecorded videos, direct
observation, or live video recordings on ride-alongs with law enforcement.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 101

Data collected while riding with law enforcement involved two different police
departments and nine different officers over the course of 11 rides. A total of four
observers participated in ride-alongs during the busiest shifts, between Thursday
and Saturday evenings anytime from 3:00 pm to 4:00 am. Riders observed the
law enforcement interactions in person and through dash-mounted cameras.
In addition, observers viewed six different recordings of police interactions.
These included two dash camera videos, a Hard Copy video, a World’s Wildest
Police Video, and two COPS videos. Officer commands were recorded as one of
eight command types and one of two subtypes. Suspect compliance and latency
were also recorded. Additional officer and department information along with
circumstantial information were recorded as well. This included the type of crime,
possession of a weapon, use of officer force, and the level of violence.

Independent and Dependent Variables

Independent variables included command type and type of crime. A command
was defined as any verbal communication directed by law enforcement to non-
emergency personnel in which a verbal or motor response was appropriate.
Commands were divided into eight types and further classified into two subtypes.
See Tables 1 and 2 for definitions and for examples of the eight command types
and two subtypes.

Table 1. Definitions of the Eight Command Types and Two Subtypes

Command Type Definition
Regular Orders that are stated directly
Stop Instruction to terminate an ongoing behavior generally preceded by the word “stop”
Don’t Instruction to terminate an ongoing behavior or a future behavior generally
preceded with the word “don’t”
Negative Instructions to terminate an ongoing behavior which do not begin with the words
“stop” or “don’t”
Indirect Suggestions (allowing for nonresponse) to respond motorically or verbally that are not
in question form—The statement only indirectly indicates what response is expected. It
requires the recipient of the command to infer what response is expected.
Question Statement in question form to which a motoric response is expected, even though
a verbal response is available but inappropriate
Interview Statement in question form to which the only appropriate response is verbal
Other Any command that cannot fit in one of the above categories or a command that
may fit in two or more of the categories at the same time
Command Subtype Definition
Alpha Command in which a motoric or verbal response is appropriate and feasible
Beta Command in which compliance may be difficult due to vagueness, interruption,
or indirectiveness

102 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

Table 2. Examples of the Eight Command Types Across Alpha and Beta
Subtypes
Command Type Alpha Examples Beta Examples
Regular Put your hands on your head Get back
Drop the gun Move
Take your hands out of your pocket Give it up
Give me your driver’s license Let me see them
Get out of the car Chill out
Get on the ground Do it now
Do the right thing
Stop Stop shooting Stop that
Stop talking Stop
Stop fighting Stop screwing around
Stop the car Stop bothering me
Stop, drop, and roll Stop it
Don’t Don’t leave your vehicle Don’t
Don’t say another word Don’t touch that
Don’t jump Don’t do that
Don’t shoot Don’t make me mad
Don’t move Don’t even think about it
Negative Quit resisting Quit
Quit talking Quit aggravating me
Quit fighting Knock it off
Quit running Quit that
Quit moving Halt
Indirect There is nothing we can do. There’s nothing to see here.
Hitting her won’t solve anything. That’s all you have to do.
We want to talk to you. We’ll give you a hand.
All you have to do is comply with our I said no.
commands.
I said freeze. We don’t want to do it.
We’re not going to kill you. If you stop, we’ll stop.
You’re threatening me with the gun.
Question Would you step out of the vehicle? Could you move?
Could you put your hands behind your back? Could you calm down?
Could I have your driver’s license? Why don’t you put it down?
Could you move away from the curb? Do you want to get tased
again?
Interview What is your name? What is going on?
How old are you?” What is your problem?
Do you know how fast you were going? Do you understand?
What is your address? What were you thinking?
Have you been drinking? What are you going to do?
Other Why don’t you stop yelling and calm down? I want you to stop, okay?
Don’t move or you’ll regret it. Stop or I’ll shoot
No, don’t do that. Knock it off, or else!
You better not expect me to
believe that; tell me the truth.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 103

Both the interview and question commands are phrased as a question. These
commands are distinguished by the response, however. A verbal response would
be appropriate for the interview command whereas it would be possible but
inappropriate for the question command. The question command requires a motor
response. For example, “What is your name?” requires a verbal response and is an
interview command. A motor response is most appropriate to commands such as
“Could you please sit down.”

The next two command types, regular and indirect, can often be confused. The
regular command type is defined as an order that is stated directly. The indirect
command type is a suggestion (allowing for nonresponse) to respond motorically
or verbally and is not in question form. The indirect command does not state a
specific command, but it is classified as a command because a specific response is
desired by the issuing individual.

The next three commands—(1) don’t, (2) stop, and(3) negative—were combined to
form an exclusionary command category. All of these commands are a request to
terminate an ongoing behavior, and the don’t and stop commands can also be used
to avert a future behavior. The differences between these commands lies in the
use of the words “don’t” and “stop.” Don’t commands are defined as instructions
to terminate an ongoing behavior or a future behavior generally proceeded
with the word “don’t.” Stop commands consist of instruction to terminate an
ongoing behavior generally proceeded by the word “stop.” Alternatively, negative
commands are defined as instructions to terminate an ongoing behavior, which do
not begin with the words “don’t” or “stop.”

The final command type, other, is defined as any command that cannot fit into only
one of the above categories or a command that may fit in two or more of the categories
at the same time. This command type is most often used when a command fits into
more than one of the command types such as “Why don’t you stop it.”

These eight command types are further divided into two subtypes: (1) alpha and
(2) beta. An alpha command is defined as a command in which a motoric or verbal
response is appropriate and feasible. Contrary to this, a beta command is defined as
a command in which compliance may be difficult due to vagueness, interruption,
or indirectiveness.

Observers could also indicate up to two categories of crimes for each encounter.
These crime categories included assault, threat, suicide, narcotics, theft, burglary,
arrest warrant, disorderly conduct, and other. Due to limitations of the sample
size, only the primary crime was used, and suicide, theft, and arrest warrant were
combined.

Assault was defined as physical violence such as domestic assaults, bar fights,
sexual assaults, etc. Threat included “terrorist,” verbal, or physical threats. Suicide
was defined as a call when someone had committed suicide or was threatening
to do so. Narcotics crimes included calls related to possessing, selling, making,
or intending to sell drugs or drug paraphernalia or being under the influence
of narcotics. Theft included taking property or merchandise in which there was
no break-in and entry and no physical harm to others. This could occur during
stealing and shoplifting calls if there was no break-in or harm to others. Burglary

104 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

was defined as break-in and entry or physical harm to others while stealing.
Arrest warrant was categorized as a police call in which police were attempting
to arrest someone because of a court order to do so. Arrest warrant calls did not
include calls during which the officer decided to arrest an individual because of
the circumstances of the situation rather than because of a court order. Disorderly
conduct included any disturbance to others such as public indecency, peeping
toms, public intoxication, disturbing the peace, etc. The other category included
any calls that didn’t easily fit into any of these categories.

Dependent variables included level of compliance, latency of response, and level of

violence. Level of compliance was divided into compliance, forced compliance, and
noncompliance: Compliance was defined as an individual responding appropriately
to an officer’s command by means of free will prior to another command by the
officer; Forced compliance occurred when an individual responded appropriately
to an officer’s command as the direct result of the officer using physical restraint,
a Taser®, or shooting a gun; and noncompliance occurred when an individual
did not respond appropriately to an officer’s command by free will or to the
officer’s use of physical restraint, a Taser®, or firing of a gun. Latency of response
was further divided into three levels: (1) immediate if compliance occurred within
approximately 10 seconds, (2) delayed if between 10 and 30 seconds, or (3) none if
more than 30 seconds.

A violent encounter was defined as an encounter between an officer and potential

suspect in which the individual posed a threat to the officer in the form of a
weapon, extreme agitation, substance intoxication, or physical force. Nonviolent
was defined as an encounter between an officer and potential suspect in which the
individual appeared to pose no threat to the officer.

Training and Interobserver Agreement

All observers received training on the operational definitions and use of coding
sheets. Observers were allowed to practice independently on several videos. A
reliability check was conducted on one of the five videos, which contained 22.9%
of the video commands. Interobserver agreement was 93%. Prior to conducting
ride-alongs, each observer was able to reach 100% agreement on the commands
given in a video.

Procedure
The primary investigator viewed and coded all six videos. For each new law
enforcement encounter, the department and jurisdiction, the officer rank, and use
of force were indicated if known. Additionally, the number of individuals giving
commands, weapons possessed, the violence of the encounter, and the type of
crime committed was recorded. Each command type, the level of compliance
obtained, and the latency of any compliant response was noted for each police-
suspect interaction.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 105

Results

Command Type and Subtype

Of the 1,801 commands given, a large portion were interview, n = 938, 52.1%;
followed by regular, n = 563, 31.3%; indirect, n = 141, 7.8%; other, n = 99, 5.5%;
question, n = 45, 2.5%; and the exclusionary commands, n = 15, .8%. Exclusionary
commands were mostly stop commands, n = 7; followed by negative, n = 6; and
don’t, n = 2. The majority of the command subtypes were alpha, with a total of
1,488 commands or 82.6%, whereas the total number of beta commands, n = 313,
were less than 18%. See Figures 1 and 2 for frequencies of commands.

Figure 1. Frequency of Eight Command Types

1,000
800
Frequency

600
400
200
0
Regular Stop Don’t Negative Indirect Question Interview Other

Command Type

Figure 2. Frequency of Alpha and Beta Command Subtypes

1488
1,488
1,600
1,400
1,200
Frequency

1,000
800
600
313
313
400
200
0
Alpha Beta
Command Subtype

106 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

Compliance
Results indicated that the level of compliance was significantly different across
the six command types: χ2(10) = 368.66, p < 0.001. The percentage of compliance per
command was greatest for interview commands, 91%; followed by other, 85%;
question, 78%; indirect, 68%; exclusionary, 50%; and regular, 48% (see Figure 3).

Figure 3. Compliance Across Six Command Types

280 853
300 268
Command Frequency

200
Compliance
No Compliance
94 84 Forced Compliance
100 82
44
35
12 7 71 9 1 13
2 0 1
0
Indiret
Exclusionary

Question

Interview

Other
Regular

Six CommandTypes
6 Command Types

Results further indicate that there were significant differences in compliance and
noncompliance across alpha and beta commands: χ2(2) = 231.059, p < 0.001. The
greatest percentage of compliance per command was found in alpha command
subtypes: 82%, compared to beta commands, 41%. The percentage of alpha
command subtypes that produced noncompliance was only 18% compared to 57%
of the beta commands (see Figure 4).

Figure 4. Compliance Across Alpha and Beta Subtypes

1,400
1212
1,212
Command Frequency

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
127 260 177
200
9 8
0
Compliance
Compliance No compliance
No Compliance Forced Compliance
Forced Compliance

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 107

Latency
Results indicated a significant difference in latency of compliance across the six
command types: χ2(10) = 54.604, p < 0.001. The exclusionary commands produced
the smallest percentage of immediate compliance per command, with only 55%;
followed by question commands, 87%; and regular, 89%. All other command types
produced at least 90% immediate compliance. Exclusionary commands were also
found to produce the highest percentage of delayed responses at 27%. All other
command types produced 5% or less in delayed responses (see Figure 5).

Figure 5. Latency Across Six Command Types

1000
1,000
841
Command Frequency

800
800
Immediate
600
600 Delayed
None
400
400
272
200
200 91 33 37 81
9 25 6 3 2 5 3 2 3 15 1 0
00
Indiret
Exclusionary

Question

Interview

Other
Regular

6SixCommand
CommandTypes
Types

Results further indicated that there were significant differences in compliance and
noncompliance across alpha and beta commands: χ2(2) = 14.02, p < 0.001. Alpha
command types produced immediate compliance 94% of the time and delayed
compliance 2% of the time. In comparison, beta commands produced immediate
compliance 85% of the time and delayed compliance 5% of the time (see Figure 6).

Figure 6. Latency Across Alpha and Beta Subtypes

Frequency

1,400
1199
Command Frequency

1,199
1,200
1,000
800 Alpha
Command

600 Beta
400
200
125
125
28
28 7
7 55
55 15
15
0
Immediate
Immediate Delayed
Delayed None
None

Latency
Latency

108 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

Violent Versus Nonviolent
Of the 1,801 commands observed, 352 commands corresponded to a violent
encounter and 1,334 to a nonviolent encounter. Results also indicate differences in
the use of the six command types in violent versus nonviolent encounters: χ2(5) =
213.398, p < 0.001. The greatest percentage of commands used in violent encounters
was regular commands, 41%; followed by question, 35%; indirect, 31%; other, 14%;
and interview and exclusionary, 9%. The greatest percentage of commands used
in nonviolent encounters was exclusionary and interview, 91%; followed by other,
86%; indirect, 69%; question, 65%; and regular, 59% (see Figure 7).

Figure 7. Frequency of Six Command Types Across Violent and Nonviolent

Encounters
81
Command Frequency

1000
1,000 839
800
600
284
400
198 92 84 81
200 1 10 41 15 28 13
0
Indiret
Exclusionary

Question

Interview

Other
Regular

Violent
Six6Command
CommandTypes
Types Nonviolent

Results further indicate that there were significant differences in the use of alpha and
beta commands in violent and nonviolent encounters: χ2(1) = 145.179, p < 0.001. The
percentage of alpha commands used in violent encounters was 16% compared with
84% used in nonviolent encounters. Beta commands occurred 49.5% of the time in
violent encounters and 50.5% of the time in nonviolent encounters (see Figure 8).

Figure 8. Alpha and Beta Subtypes Across Violent and Nonviolent Encounters
1,400
CommandFrequency

1,209
1,200
Frequency

1,000
800 Alpha
Alpha
Command

600 Beta
Beta
400
229 125
123
200
0
Violent
Violent Non Violent
Nonviolent

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 109

Type of Crime
The crime associated with the most commands was other, 53.1%; followed by
assault, 20.5%; disorderly conduct, 19.3%; and threat, 4.6%. All other crimes were
each associated with less than 1% of the commands (see Figure 9). Due to the
type of statistical analyses and small number of cells containing suicide, theft, and
arrest warrant, these three categories were combined to form one category. Thus,
the total number of crime categories was reduced from eight to six.

Figure 9. Frequency of Commands Across Crime

1,200
957
1,000
Frequency

800
600
370 347
400
200 82 10 7 12 16
0
Assault Threat Suicide Theft Arrest Disorderly Other Unknown
Warrant Conduct
Types of Crime

Results indicated that there were significant differences in the six types of crime
across the six command types: χ2(25) = 109.36, p < 0.001. The use of regular commands
occurred most for other crimes, followed by assault, disorderly conduct, and threat
crimes. The use of regular commands was less than 1% for each of the additional
crimes. Exclusionary commands were used primarily for other crimes, followed by
assault, threat, and disorderly conduct crimes. There was no use of exclusionary
commands for any other crimes. Indirect commands were highest for other crimes,
followed by assault, disorderly conduct, suicide/theft/arrest warrant, and threat
crimes. There were no indirect commands used in the additional crime categories.
Question commands were used most for disorderly conduct and other commands
followed by assault and unknown crimes. No question commands were used in
the additional crime categories. Interview commands were found most commonly
in other crimes, followed by disorderly conduct, assault, suicide/theft/arrest
warrant, and threat crimes. The use of interview commands was less than 1% for
unknown crimes. Other command types were greatest for other crimes, followed
by disorderly conduct, assault, and suicide/theft/arrest warrant crimes.

Results further indicated that there were significant differences in the use of
alpha and beta commands across the six types of crime: χ2(5) = 95.832, p < 0.001.
The majority of alpha commands were used in other crimes, 55%; followed by
disorderly conduct, 21%; and assault, 17.5%. All other alpha commands were
divided by less than 5% in each of the additional crime categories. The majority of
beta commands were found in other crimes, 43%; followed by assault, 35%; and
disorderly conduct, 11.5%. All other beta commands were divided by less than 5%
in each of the additional crime categories (see Figure 10).

110 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

Figure 10. Crime Across Alpha and Beta Subtypes
900
822
800
Command Frequency

700
600
500 Alpha
Beta
400
261 311
300
200 135
109
69
100 21 8 36
13 4 12
0
Assault Threat Suicide, Disorderly Other Unknown
Theft, Arrest Conduct
Warrant
Crime

Discussion
There is a lack of research evaluating command categories, defined by command
structure and form, on outcomes of police interactions. This study was designed
to evaluate differences in the use of command types and subtypes used by
police officers in different crimes and with different levels of violence. The effect
of different command type and subtype on compliance and latency was also
evaluated.

Compliance
Results indicate that a much higher proportion of the alpha commands, 82%,
resulted in compliance in comparison to noncompliance. In comparison, the beta
commands resulted in compliance 41% of the time and 57% in noncompliance
(the remaining 2% were coded as forced compliance). This supports the idea that
alpha commands may be more likely to result in compliance than beta commands.
The clarity and feasibility of alpha commands may make it more likely that an
appropriate response will be made.

Results for the command types indicated that 70% of the stop commands, 50%
of the regular commands, 33% of the negative commands, and 31% of indirect
commands produced noncompliance. The other four command types produced
noncompliance 20% or less of the time. This data calls into question effectiveness
of stop, regular, negative, and indirect commands.

Latency
The data indicated that alpha and beta commands produced fairly similar levels
of latency (i.e., the time span from commands being issued to commands being
complied with), with 94% of alpha commands and 85% of beta commands resulting
in immediate compliance. These results provide additional support for the use of
alpha commands.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 111

Results further indicated that negative and stop commands ranked lowest in
producing immediate compliance. Negative commands resulted in immediate
compliance only 40% of the time, and stop commands were only 50% compared
to 87% or better from all other command types. Additionally, these two command
types scored highest on delayed latency, with stop commands producing delayed
latency 25% of the time and negative commands 40% of the time, while all other
command types were 5% or less.

Violent Versus Nonviolent Encounters

The results indicated that 84% of the alpha commands occurred during nonviolent
police encounters, while 50% of the beta commands occurred during nonviolent
encounters. Additionally, only 16% of the alpha commands occurred during
violent encounters, while 50% of beta commands occurred during violent
encounters. This may provide support for the use of alpha command subtypes to
promote nonviolent police encounters and the minimization of beta commands to
prevent violent encounters. The use of more specific and feasible requests by law
enforcement may lead to fewer violent encounters.

All of the eight command types occurred more often during nonviolent than
violent encounters; however, 41% of the regular commands, 35% of the question
commands, and 31% of the indirect commands occurred during violent encounters.
The higher percentages of these command types in violent encounters supports
the idea that these commands may be more likely to lead to violent encounters.
The use of more interview, question, negative, or other commands may lead to a
reduced number of violent encounters.

Type of Crime
Both alpha and beta subtypes occurred most often in the other crime category.
Alpha command types occurred second most frequently in disorderly conduct
crimes followed by assault crimes. Beta command types occurred second most
frequently in assault crimes followed by disorderly conduct crimes.

With the exception of negative command types, the majority of all the command
types occurred in the other crime category. The majority of question commands
were used during disorderly conduct crimes. The majority of don’t commands
occurred during threat crimes. The majority of stop crimes occurred during assault
crimes. Also, interview and regular commands were used the most compared to
all other commands during assault, disorderly conduct, and other crimes.

The results provide strong support for the use of alpha command types to promote
nonviolent encounters and compliance with police requests. There is evidence to
suggest that the use of alpha subtypes may facilitate more immediate compliance.
It is more difficult to draw conclusions about differences in the use of alpha and
beta commands in different crimes, however; it is clear from the results that more
research is needed in this area.

The results suggest that regular, question, and indirect commands are being used
more frequently in violent encounters. Although causation cannot be determined
from this study, the result raises concern. Furthermore, the use of stop and

112 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)

negative commands may be hindering compliance and reducing the likelihood of
individuals ceasing unwanted and sometimes violent behaviors. Although once
again causation cannot be determined, the results of this study suggest that officers
may actually be prolonging noncompliance by using negative commands. In
addition, the regular and indirect commands may also be hindering compliance.

Limitations
It is important to note that several of these results should be analyzed with
caution. Of the eight chi square analyses conducted on crime, compliance, latency,
and violence for the six command types and two subtypes, four of these analyses
had a higher percentage of cells with low expected frequencies. The percentages
were 25% for crime across subtype, 27.8% for compliance across six command
types, 44.4% for latency across six command types, and 52.1% for crime across six
command types.

The other limitation associated with the type of statistical analyses conducted is
the inability to look at the interaction between variables. The statistical analyses
did not allow for an investigation into the command type and subtype interaction
effects on violence, latency, compliance, and crime.

It is also difficult to make interpretations of the crime data since more than
50% of the crimes associated with the commands were categorized as “other.”
Furthermore, there are only 15 commands categorized as “exclusionary”: seven
stop, six negative, and two don’t commands. The limited data for each of these
categories may make it difficult to interpret the findings.

Implications
This study emphasizes the importance of command form and clarity in increasing
suspect compliance and increasing the speed of suspect compliance. This study
also draws attention to the frequency of different command types across different
crimes. The results suggest that less effective commands occur more often in
situations where violence is a likely outcome. This might indicate that these
commands may play some role in this outcome, or at the very least it suggests
that beta and negative commands do not increase either the speed or likelihood
of compliance. The opposite is more likely true. This research and future similar
research could be used to develop a template of appropriate versus inappropriate
commands and responses for certain circumstances. This, in turn, might prove
very useful in officer training on the use of efficient commands for communicating
with suspects and preventing violent encounters.

References
Bayley, D. H., & Bittner, E. (1984). Learning the skills of policing. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 47(4), 35-59.

Bayley, D. H., & Garofalo, J. (1989). The management of violence by police patrol
officers. Criminology, 27, 1-26.

Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2) 113

Bertsch, K. M. (1999). Naturalistic observation of teacher’s commands in preschool
classrooms. Unpublished manuscript, Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Forehand, R. L., & McMahon, R. J. (1981). Helping the noncompliant child. New York:
The Guilford Press.

Johnson, R. R. (2004). Citizen expectations of police traffic stop behavior. Policing,

27(4), 487-497.

Mastrofski, S. D., Snipes, J. B., & Supina, A. E. (1996). Compliance on demand:

The public’s response to specific police requests. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 33(3), 269-305.

Peed, S., Roberts, M., & Forehand, R. (1977). Evaluation of the effectiveness of a
standardized parent training program in altering the interaction of mothers and
noncompliant children. Behavior Modification, 1, 323-350.

Reiss, A. J., Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Thompson, G. J. (1983). Verbal judo: Words as a force option. Springfield, IL: Charles
C. Thomas.

Emily N. Schwarzkopf, MA, is a recent graduate of the Clinical Psychology

program at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

Daniel D. Houlihan, PhD, is a professor of Clinical Psychology at Minnesota

State University, Mankato. Much of his research involves command types
and compliance issues with various populations.

Kari Kolb, M,A, is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology at Miami

University, Ohio.

William Lewinski, PhD, is a professor of Law Enforcement at Minnesota

State University, Mankato and the Director of the Force Science Research
Center.

Jeffrey Buchanan, PhD, is an assistant professor of Clinical Psychology at

Minnesota State University, Mankato. Some of his research involves command
types and communication patterns between staff and elderly patients with
dementia.

Angela Christenson, is a master’s student in the Clinical Psychology program

at Minnesota State University, Mankato.

114 Law Enforcement Executive Forum • 2008 • 8(2)