Public opinion and the immediate entry dilemma: A factorial survey experiment on active shooter response

Résumé fourni par la source

Active shooter events remain a critical public safety concern, with public expectations often centered on how quickly police intervene to stop the threat. While recent studies have examined how law enforcement officers view their role in these events, no research has directly measured citizen perceptions of officer actions. This study addresses that gap by using a quasi-experimental factorial survey with two national samples of U.S. adults. Respondents ( n = 767, n = 827) each evaluated 10 randomly assigned vignettes depicting officer decisions during active shooter scenarios, resulting in more than 15,800 vignette assessments. Results show that citizens' judgments of appropriateness were driven less by situational “driving forces,” such as gunfire or wounded victims, and more by symbolic features of the event, particularly the location. Citizens strongly supported immediate entry in schools and parades, while support was lower in large malls where waiting for backup was viewed as more acceptable. These findings contrast with prior officer-focused research, which found that police judgments are primarily influenced by threat cues. The divergence underscores that public legitimacy cannot be fully understood through officer perspectives alone. Law enforcement policy and training may not be guided by public preferences, but citizen perceptions shape legitimacy, accountability, and trust following high-profile events. Future research should continue to explore how public expectations intersect with professional practices under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.