This article was first published in the Boston Globe on June 9, 2025 accessible only to subscribers. It has been re-printed here with permission from the editor.

____________________________

Andrea Dittmann is an assistant professor of management and organization at the University of Southern California’s Marshall School of Business. Kyle Dobson is an assistant professor of public policy and psychology at the Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy at the University of Virginia.

During a ride-along with a police officer on a cold January evening in the Midwest, we spotted a huddled figure on a park bench. This person looked cold, and the officer we were shadowing wondered aloud whether they had enough warm clothing or somewhere to go that night.

The officer rolled down their window and called out, “Hey, are you OK?” We watched as the person on the bench immediately tensed up with suspicion. It was stunning to see how quickly a disconnect formed between the officer’s good intentions and the civilian’s fear of trouble.

As researchers, we’ve spent more than 500 hours observing, interviewing, and riding along with police officers. We’ve found that this disconnect is common. Officers feel they’re being respectful and polite, while community members — especially people of color, unhoused people, and members of other groups that are disproportionately stopped by or otherwise involved with law enforcement — interpret the interaction as a threat.

But our new research shows that a simple intervention can quickly put people at ease: a short statement from the officer about why they stopped the person and what they intend to do. Previous research has found that the first 45 words exchanged during a police encounter can predict how the whole scenario plays out. Knowing this, officers can use those earliest moments to neutralize the idea that they’re a threat, prevent escalation, and facilitate a more positive interaction.

Police officers start their conversations with a trust deficit, and strategies that usually put people at ease in regular social situations — like joking around — can backfire in situations where there’s a power imbalance. Even a friendly “How are you? Can I talk to you for a minute?” can put people on edge when the officer’s intentions are unclear.

Enter the transparency statement. It’s a simple sentence an officer can give at the start of a wide range of interactions with community members — from traffic stops to meet and greets to simply stopping to check on someone who looks cold. The statement quickly and clearly explains why they’ve initiated the interaction. While it sounds simple, our studies with real people and police officers show that a transparency statement can make a difference.
A transparency statement is not an exact script. Officers can and should word their transparency statements in a way that captures their true goal for the interaction.

For example, one officer’s statement was: “Hi, I’m Officer [Name], how’s it going? I’m out here walking around just trying to get to know my beat and my community. Is it OK if I talk to you for a minute?” In this opening statement, the officer states that their intent is to get to know the community, not take the person to task for wrongdoing.

Another officer’s statement was similar but more casual in tone: “I’m just walking around getting to know everybody that’s hanging out in the area to introduce myself and make sure you’re doing OK.” Again, this officer makes clear their benevolent intent from the start.

Some officers make such statements naturally. On another ride-along, we observed an interaction between two Latino officers and two Latino middle-aged men who were sitting on the curb of a busy street. The officers opened with “Cuidado!,”, or “Be careful!” in Spanish, and then suggested the men move, explaining that where they were sitting was dangerous for both them and the cars whizzing by. With clear information about the officers’ intentions, the two men understood and packed up immediately.

These officers hit each of the four key elements that we’ve pinpointed for effective transparency statements. The first is timing. The statement should be made as soon as possible, to set the tone for the interaction from the outset.

Next is benevolence. Officers should communicate an honest reason for the interaction that is ideally motivated by helping the community and specific individuals. This works only if the intention feels genuine — the third characteristic of a good transparency statement.

Last, the statement needs to be personal. Officers should speak in the first person (e.g.., “I’m worried about your safety”) and refer to the situation at hand. Generic statements about department-wide efforts to engage the community don’t work as well (e.g., “Our department has a new initiative to get to know community residents”).

In our field studies, transparency statements have a simple but powerful effect. In one experiment, we measured electrical signals given off by participants’ skin, which indicate stress, during interactions with police officers. We also analyzed the language spoken during the exchanges and surveyed participants after the interactions.

When officers implemented transparency statements, community members were more likely to respond using language associated with positive rapport and trust-building. They spoke more words during the conversation, suggesting a greater level of engagement. Our skin measurements also indicated they were calmer and more open to the interaction. In tests where an officer did not open a conversation with a transparency statement, skin results showed that stress levels continued to rise over the course of the conversation.

In surveys after the interaction, community members were less likely to report feeling threatened: 40 percent said they felt the threat posed by the officer was low versus 29 percent without a transparency statement. And more people reported that they trusted the police officer and his or her investment in their well-being (55 percent versus 46 percent).

Around one in five adults in the United States has an encounter with the police each year. For 20 million Americans, the interaction is initiated by a police officer, typically through a traffic stop or contact on the street. If officers across the country started consistently using transparency statements, that could mean 1.8 million more people having a trusting interaction with police and 2.2 million more people having an interaction where they don’t feel threatened.

Teaching the method takes mere minutes, though making it second nature takes practice. After the promising results from our initial experiment, we’ve begun training officers in one city and will be testing outcomes across the department and the community over the next year.

Transparency statements are a simple concept, and that’s part of their beauty. Law enforcement officers face a high cognitive load when they’re out in the field trying to assess uncertain situations in real time. Having a simple template to follow that’s proved to work can make their jobs easier and help community members breathe easier.