KOLLUĞUN GÖZLEM ve KARAR VERME BECERİLERİ

Abstract

Gerek adli kolluk, gerekse önleyici kolluk görevlileri, mesleki gereklilik gereği durumsal farkındalıklarını her zaman için en üst düzeyde tutmalıdırlar. Sürekli gözlem yaparak bu gözlemler neticesinde muhakeme etmeleri ve karar vermeleri kendilerinden beklenir. Kolluğun gözlem ve muhakeme becerilerine örnek olarak, bir kurgu karakter olan Sherlock Holmes verilmiştir. Holmes’in kurgulanma sürecinde yazarın esinlendiği bilim adamları ve filozoflar, bu konuda kolluğa önemli ipuçları sağlamaktadır. İnce kesit gözlem ve kararlar, kolluğun dayanması gereken ilkelerden ve süreçlerdendir. Ayrıca kolluğun gözlem yapma ve karar verme süreçleri üzerinde klişeleşmiş düşünce biçimlerinin de etkisinin olabileceği ortadadır. Bu nedenle, hâle etkisi, sabit hata, bebekyüz ve öncelik etkisinin de üzerinde geniş bir biçimde durulmuş ve konuya ilişkin bağlantılar izah edilmiştir. Çalışmanın sonunda, kolluğun kişileri ve olayları gözlemlemeye, boş bir bilinçle, ön yargılardan ve ön teorilerden uzak bir biçimde yaklaşması, tümdengelim metodunu benimsemesi gerektiği sonucuna varılmıştır. İnce kesit kararların son derece yüksek bir isabet oranına sahip olduğu, ancak bunun içgüdüsel bir süreç şeklinde ele alınması gerektiği ortaya konulmuştur. Klişe düşünce biçimlerinin de kolluğun karar verme süreçleri üzerinde son derece etkili olabileceği, bu nedenle klişelerin farkında olunması ve bunlardan arınmış bir biçimde gözlem yapılarak muhakeme edilmesi gerektiği anlaşılmıştır.

Keywords

• Kolluk Personeli, İnce Kesit, Gözlemleme, Sözsüz Davranışlar, Hâle Etkisi, Sabit Hata, Öncelik Etkisi

THE OBSERVING AND REASONING ABILITIES OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS

Abstract

Both the judicial police, as well as preventing law enforcement officers must keep their awareness at the highest level because of the professional requirements. They are supposed to observe continuously and conduct the processes of reasoning and deciding through these observations. Sherlock Holmes, a written character, has been given as an example of the observing and reasoning abilities of the law enforcement officers. The scientists and the philosophers who impressed the writer through the procedure of creating Holmes may give some important clues to the law enforcement officers. It is clear that thin slicing observations and the decisions are from the principles and the processes that the law enforcement forces should depend on. For this reason, “the halo effect”, “the constant error”, “the baby face phenomena” and “the primacy” effect are emphasized broadly and the connections through the issue are explained. In the end of the research, it is concluded that the law enforcement personnel should approach the observation the incidents by a blank mind without any prejudice and pre-theories; they should adopt the deduction method. It is revealed that thin slicing decisions have high accuracy rates but this situation should be examined as an intuitive process. It is understood that stereotype reasoning manners could extremely affect the deciding procedures of the law enforcement forces, and for this reason these must be eliminated while observing and reasoning.

Keywords

• Law Enforcement Personnel, Thin Slicing, Observing, Nonverbal Behaviors, Halo Effect, Constant Error, Primacy Error

References

1. Akçay, E. (2011). Adalet Sisteminin Aktörleri ve Sözsüz İletişim Becerileri. Esas Dergisi,(1), 24-27.
2. Akçay, E. (2012a). Yalan Söyleme Kabiliyeti ve cinsiyetler Arası Bir Karşılaştırma. Selçuk İletişim Dergisi, 7, (3), 234-243.
3. Akçay, E. (2012b). Sözsüz İletişim İşaretleri ve Ergenlerde Sözsüz İşaret Bilgisinin Analizi. (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). Eskişehir: Anadolu Üniversitesi.
4. Akçay, E. (2012b). Your Body Reveals You. Review of the Air Force Academy, Romania, X, 2 (21), 50-55.
5. Allport, G. (1937). Personality: A Psychological İnterpretation. New York: Holt.
6. Albrechtsen, J. S. (2007). Are İntutive Responses More Accurate At Detecting Deception Than Deliberative Responses? (Yayınlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi). The University of Texas, El Paso.
7. Ambady, N. (2010). The Perils of Pondering: Intuition and Thin Slice Judgments. Psychological Inquiry, (21), 271–278.
8. Ambady, N., ve Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin Slices of Expressive Behavior As Predictors Of İnterpersonal Consequences: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin, (111), 256-274.

9. Ambady, N., Bernieri, F. J., ve Richeson, J. A. (2000). Toward a Histology Of Social Behavior: Judgmental Accuracy From Thin Slices of The Behavioral Stream. İçinde Zann, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (ss. 201-271). San Diego: Academic Press.
10. Ambady, N. ve Krabbenhoft, M.A. (2006). The 30-Sec Sale: Using Thin-Slice Judgments to Evaluate Sales Effectiveness. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 16 (1), 4-1.
11. Angelo, T. (2008). Lecturing For (Deeper) Learning İn Large Classes. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtXtYNOiEIU, (Erişim Tarihi: 25.09.2011)
12. Argyle, M. (1975). Bodily Communication. London: Methuen. Bacon, F. (1999). Novum Organum. (Çev.) Sema ÖNAL AKKAŞ. Ankara: Doruk Yayınları.
13. Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional Automaticity: Varieties Of Automatic İnfluence In Social Perception And Cognition. İçinde J. S. Uleman ve J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (ss. 3–51). New York, NY: Guilford.
14. Bargh, J. A. (1996). Automaticity in Social Psychology. İçinde E. T. Higgins ve A. W. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles (ss. 169–183). New York, NY: Guilford.
15. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The Automaticity Of Everyday Life. İçinde R. S.Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The Automaticity Of Everyday Life: Advances İn Social Cognition, Vol. 10, (ss. 1–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16. Çakmak, E.K. (2007). Çoklu Ortamlarda Dar Boğaz: Aşırı Bilişsel Yüklenme. Gazi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 27 (2), 1-24.
17. Damasio, A. R. (1994) The Brain Binds Entities And Events By Multiregional Activation From Convergence Zones. Içinde Gutfreund, H., Toulouse, G. ve River Edge (Eds.), Biology And Computation: A Physicist's Choice (ss. 749-758). New Jersey: World Scientific Publishing Co.
18. Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic And Controlled Components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.
19. Esin, A. (2011). Dikkatsizce Kullanılan Önlemler - “Dikkat Et/Dikkatli Ol!” Çimento Endüstrisi İşverenleri Sendikası Dergisi, Mart, 1-11. Huxley, T. H. (1896). On The Method Of Zadig. Collected Essays,.(IV),18, NewYork,NY,USA: D.Appleton.
20. Innocence Project. (2013). http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/ What_is_the_racial_breakdown_of_exonerees.php;http://www.innocencepr oject.org/Content/Facts_on_PostConviction_DNA_Exonerations.php (Erişim Tarihi: 19.01.2013).
21. Kahneman, D. (2003). A Perspective On Judgment And Choice: Mapping Bounded Rationality. American Psychologist, 58 (9), 697-720. Kayalvizhi, A. (2012). Cerebral Analysis Of Sherlock Holmes İn Detection. Language in India, 12 (4), 150-167.
22. Konnikova, M. (2013). Do You Think Like Sherlock Holmes? Mobil Slate, http://mobile.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2013/01/how_t o_think_like_sherlock_holmes_see_and_observe_to_fight_attention_blindn ess.html?original_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ft.co%2FVei58Iqe (Erişim Tarihi: 03.01. 2013)
23. Kubinyi , H. (1999). Chance Favors The Prepared Mind – From Serendıpıty To Ratıonal Drug Design. Journal of Receptor and Signal Transduction Research, 19 (1-4),15-39.
24. Landy, D., ve Sigall, H. (1974). Beauty is Talent: Task Evaluation As A Function Of The Performer's Physical Attractiveness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, (29), 299-304.
25. Leo, O. C. ve Chukwuemeka, M. I. (2011). Francis Bacon’s Qualification As The Father Of Modern Philosophy. Canadian Social Science, 7 (6), 258- 263.
26. Lieberman, D. J. (2001). Get Anyone To Do Anything. New York: St. Martin's Griffin.
27. Mack, A. ve Rock, I. (1998). Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
28. Morris, D. (2008). İnsanat Bahçesi. İlk basım 1985. (Çev.) Nuran Yavuz. İstanbul: İnkılâp Yayınevi.
29. Most, S. B. vd. (2001). How Not To Be Seen: The Contribution Of Similarity And Selective İgnoring To Sustained İnattentional Blindness. Psychological Science, 12, 9–17.
30. Most, S. B., Scholl, B. J., Clifford, E., ve Simons, D. J. (2005). What You See Is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness And The Capture Of Awareness. Psychological Review, (112), 217–242.
31. Most, S. B. (2011). What’s ‘‘Inattentional” About Inattentional Blindness? Consciousness and Cognition 19 (2010) 1102–1104.
32. Navarro, J. (2012). Becoming a Great Observer. Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/print/84006 (Erişim Tarihi: 25.12.2012) Neill, A. (2009). The Savage Genius of Sherlock Holmes, Victorian Literature and Culture, (37), 611–626.
33. Neisser, U. (1979). The Control Of İnformation Pickup In Selective Looking. İçinde A. D. Pick (Ed.), Perception And İts Development: A Tribute To Eleanor, J. Gibson (ss. 201–219). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34. Neuberg, S. L. (1989). The Goal Of Forming Accurate İmpressions During Social İnteractions: Attenuating The İmpact Of Negative Expectancies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(3), 374–386.
35. Nisbett, R. E. ve Wilson, T. D. (1977). The Halo Effect: Evidence For Unconscious Alteration Of Judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35 (4), 250-256.
36. Nolan, C. (2006). The Prestige. Hollywood filmi. Oygür, L. (2012). Durumsal Farkındalık ve Jandarma. Jandarma Dergisi, Ocak, (132), 8-15.
37. Pincott, J. (2012). What’s In A Face? Psychology Today, http://www. psychologytoday.com/articles/201210/whats-in-face (Erişim Tarihi: 26.12.2012)
38. Polanyi, M. (1966). The Tacit Dimension. New York, NY: Doubleday. Posner, M. I. ve Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention And Cognitive Control. İçinde R. L. Solso (Ed.), Information Processing And Cognition: The Loyola Symposium (ss. 55–85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
39. Rehbock, P. F. (2000). Martin J.S. Rudwick “Georges Cuvier, fosil bones, and geological catastrophes: new translations of the primary texts”. Medical History, 44(3), 410.
40. Ritchie, G. (2011). Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows. Hollywood Filmi. Russell, B. (1979). A History Of Western Philosophy. London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.
41. Sapir, E. A. (1949). Communication In Selected Writings Of Edward Sapir İn Language, Culture, And Personality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
42. Schafer, J. R. (2010). Psychological Narrative Analysis. Springfield: Charles C Thomas Publisher Ltd.
43. Shiffrin, R. M., ve Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled And Automatic Human information Processing: II. Perceptual Learning, Automatic Attending, And A General Theory. Psychological Review, (84), 127–190.
44. Simons, D. J. ve Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas İn Our Midst: Sustained Inattentional Blindness For Dynamic Events. Perception, (28), 1059– 1074.
45. Smith, H.A. (1979) . Nonverbal Communication In Teaching. Rewiew of Educational Research, 49 (4), 631-672. Smith, E.R. ve Zarate, M. (1990). Exemplar and Prototype Use In Social Categorization. Journal of Social Psychology, (14), 237-255.
46. Srull, T. K., ve Wyer, R. S. (1979). The Role Of Category Accessibility İn The İnterpretation Of İnformation About Persons: Some Determinants And İmplications. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. (37), 1660– 1672.
47. Synder, L.J. (2004). Sherlock Holmes: SCİENTİfiC DETECTİVE. Endeavour, 28 (3), 104-108.
48. Taylor, S. E., Peplav, L. A. ve Sears D. O. (2012) Sosyal Psikoloji. 3. Baskı. (Çev.) Ali Dönmez. Ankara: İletişim Yayınevi.
49. The Primacy Effect & Your Initial Contact, (2013). http://www.theprimacyeffect.com/pdf/primacy_article.pdf (Erişim Tarihi: 19.01.2013)
50. Thorndike, E.L.(1920). A Constant Error In Psychological Ratings. Journal of Applied Psychology, 4(1), 25-29.
51. Topdemir, H. G. (1999). Francis Bacon’un Bilim Anlayışı. Felsefe Dünyası, 2 (30), 51-68.
52. Türk Dil Kurumu, (2013). http://www.tdk.org.tr (Erişim Tarihi: 19.01.2013)
53. Wegner, D. M., ve Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control And Automaticity in Social Life. İçinde D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, ve G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of Social Psychology, 4. Basım, (ss. 446–496). Boston, MA: McGraw Hill.
54. Zagorin, P. (2001). Francis Bacon's Concept of Objectivity And The Idols Of The Mindauthor. The British Journal for the History of Science, 34 (4), 379-393