Causal peer effects in police misconduct

A Publisher Correction to this article was published on 12 June 2019

This article has been updated


We estimate causal peer effects in police misconduct using data from about 35,000 officers and staff from London’s Metropolitan Police Service for the period 2011–2014. We use instrumental variable techniques and exploit the variation in peer misconduct that results when officers switch peer groups. We find that a 10% increase in prior peer misconduct increases an officer’s later misconduct by 8%. As the police are empowered to enforce the law and protect individual liberties, integrity and fairness in policing are essential for establishing and maintaining legitimacy and public consent1,2,3,4,5. Understanding the antecedents of misconduct will help to develop interventions that reduce misconduct.

Access options

Rent or Buy article

Get time limited or full article access on ReadCube.


All prices are NET prices.

Fig. 1: The identification strategy for peer effects.
Fig. 2: Fitted probability of misconduct at t conditional on the proportion of peers exhibiting events of misconduct in t − 1.

Data availability

The data that support the findings of this study are not publicly available. If you would like to view and reproduce our results, please contact E.G.Q.-T. to organize a supervised visit to our local network.

Code availability

Analyses were conducted in R 3.4.5 and Stata 13.1. All code is available in the public repository

Change history

  • 12 June 2019

    An amendment to this paper has been published and can be accessed via a link at the top of the paper.


  1. 1.

    Goldsmith, A. Police reform and the problem of trust. Theor. Criminol. 9, 443–470 (2005).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Ivkovic, S. K. & Haberfeld, M. R. Special issue on police integrity: an introduction. Polic. Int. J. 39, 246–431 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Bayley, D. H. Law enforcement and the rule of law: is there a tradeoff? Criminol. Public Policy 2, 133–154 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Walker, S. E. & Archbold, C. A. The New World Of Police Accountability (Sage Publications, 2013).

  5. 5.

    Murphy, K., Hinds, L. & Fleming, J. Encouraging public cooperation and support for police. Polic. Soc. 18, 136–155 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Christopher, W. Report of the Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department (Diane Publishing, 1991).

  7. 7.

    Gillard, M. & Flynn, L. Untouchables: Dirty Cops, Bent Justice and Racism in Scotland Yard (A&C Black, 2012).

  8. 8.

    UK Government Select Committee on Home Affairs First Report (House of Commons, 1998).

  9. 9.

    Harris, C. J. Problem officers? Analyzing problem behavior patterns from a large cohort. J. Crim. Justice 38, 216–225 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Kane, R. J. & White, M. D. Bad cops: a study of career-ending misconduct among New York City police officers. Criminol. Public Policy 8, 737–769 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Lersch, K. M. & Mieczkowski, T. Who are the problem-prone officers? An analysis of citizen complaints. Am. J. police 15, 23–44 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Brandl, S. G., Stroshine, M. S. & Frank, J. Who are the complaint-prone officers? An examination of the relationship between police officers’ attributes, arrest activity, assignment, and citizens’ complaints about excessive force. J. Crim. Justice 29, 521–529 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    McElvain, J. P. & Kposowa, A. J. Police officer characteristics and internal affairs investigations for use of force allegations. J. Crim. Justice 32, 265–279 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Harris, C. J. Exploring the relationship between experience and problem behaviors: a longitudinal analysis of officers from a large cohort. Police Q. 12, 192–213 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Kappeler, V. E., Sapp, A. D. & Carter, D. L. Police officer higher education, citizen complaints and departmental rule violations. Am. J. Police 11, 37 (1992).

    Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Harris, C. J. The onset of police misconduct. Polic.: Int. J. Police Strateg. Manag. 37, 285–304 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Donner, C. M. & Jennings, W. G. Low self-control and police deviance: applying Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory to officer misconduct. Police Q. 17, 203–225 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Pogarsky, G. & Piquero, A. R. Studying the reach of deterrence: can deterrence theory help explain police misconduct? J. Crim. Justice 32, 371–386 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Brooks, L.W. Police discretionary behavior: A study of style. Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings 7th edn (eds. Dunham, R. G. & Alpert, G. P.) 122–142 (Waveland Press, 2015).

  20. 20.

    Wolfe, S. E. & Piquero, A. R. Organizational justice and police misconduct. Crim. Justice Behav. 38, 332–353 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Engel, R. S. The effects of supervisory styles on patrol officer behavior. Police Q. 3, 262–293 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Engel, R. S. How police supervisory styles influence patrol officer behavior. Critical Issues In Policing: Contemporary Readings 7th edn (eds. Dunham, R. G. & Alpert, G. P.) 219–228 (Waveland Press, 2015).

  23. 23.

    Terrill, W. & Reisig, M. D. Neighborhood context and police use of force. J. Res. Crime Delinquency 40, 291–321 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Kohlberg, L. Stage and Sequence: the Cognitive–Developmental Approach to Socialization (Rand McNally, 1969).

  25. 25.

    Treviño, L. K., Den Nieuwenboer, N. A. & Kish-Gephart, J. J. Unethical behavior in organizations. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 635–660 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Mas, A. & Moretti, E. Peers at work. Am. Econ. Rev. 99, 112–145 (2009).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Zimmerman, D. J. Peer effects in academic outcomes: evidence from a natural experiment. Rev. Econ. Stat. 85, 9–23 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Trogdon, J. G., Nonnemaker, J. & Pais, J. Peer effects in adolescent overweight. J. Health Econ. 27, 1388–1399 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Herbst, D. & Mas, A. Peer effects on worker output in the laboratory generalize to the field. Science 350, 545–549 (2015).

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Ingram, J. R., Paoline, E. A. III & Terrill, W. A multilevel framework for understanding police culture: the role of the workgroup. Criminology 51, 365–397 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Chappell, A. T. & Piquero, A. R. Applying social learning theory to police misconduct. Deviant Behav. 25, 89–108 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Getty, R. M., Worrall, J. L. & Morris, R. G. How far from the tree does the apple fall? Field training officers, their trainees, and allegations of misconduct. Crime Delinquency 62, 821–839 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Manski, C. F. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60, 531–542 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Terrill, W. & Ingram, J. R. Citizen complaints against the police: an eight city examination. Police Q. 19, 150–179 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Prenzler, T. & Ransley, J. Police Reform: Building Integrity (Hawkins Press, 2002).

  36. 36.

    Angrist, J. D. The perils of peer effects. Labour Econ. 30, 98–108 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Manski, C. F. Economic analysis of social interactions. J. Econ. Perspect. 14, 115–136 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Staiger, D. & Stock, J. H. Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica 65, 557–586 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Hansen, L. P. Large sample properties of generalized method of moments estimators. Econometrica 50, 1029−1054 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. 40.

    Klockars, C. B., Ivkovich, S. K., Harver, W. E. & Haberfeld, M. R. The Measurement of Police Integrity (National Institute of Justice, 1997).

  41. 41.

    Lersch, K. M. Are citizen complaints just another measure of officer productivity? An analysis of citizen complaints and officer activity measures. Police Pract. Res. 3, 135–147 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. 42.

    Ashforth, B. E. & Anand, V. The normalization of corruption in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 25, 1–52 (2003).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. 43.

    Loree, D. Corruption in Policing: Causes and Consequences - A Review of the Literature. (Research and Evaluation, Community, Contract and Aboriginal Policing Services Directorate, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, 2006).

  44. 44.

    Hough, M., May, T., Hales, G. & Belur, J. Misconduct by police leaders in England and Wales: an exploratory study. Polic. Soc. 28, 541–552 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. 45.

    Akers, R. L. Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation (Routledge, 2013).

Download references


This work was supported by Economic and Social Research Council grants ES/K002201/1, ES/P008976/1, ES/N018192/1 and Leverhulme Trust grant RP2012-V-022. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish or preparation of the manuscript.

Author information




Data were provided by the Metropolitan Police Service to N.S. The concept for the paper was developed jointly by the authors. E.G.Q.-T. designed and completed all the analysis and wrote the manuscript of the paper. Both authors revised the manuscript and approved the final version.

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Edika G. Quispe-Torreblanca or Neil Stewart.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary information

Supplementary Information

Supplementary Methods, Supplementary Figures 1 and 2, Supplementary Tables 1–13 and Supplementary References.

Reporting Summary

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Quispe-Torreblanca, E.G., Stewart, N. Causal peer effects in police misconduct. Nat Hum Behav 3, 797–807 (2019).

Download citation

Further reading


Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing