Spotting Signs, Signals of Perilous People and Situations
When it comes to perceiving danger, sometimes, the problem is not looking but overlooking. Seeing but not believing.
Downplaying or doubting negative information about a suspect who doesn’t “look” or “act” like a criminal is common in many circumstances, both professional and personal.
In order to protect the public, being able to effectively “see something, say something” requires accurately and objectively perceiving what we see.
Research explains.
Red Flags of Danger: Signal Strength
Peter J. Phillips and Gabriela Pohl (2020) examined the role of judgment and evaluation in determining how red flags of terrorism become weak signals.
Focusing on a particular aspect of counterterrorism, they looked at scenarios where red flags/strong signals regarding a prospective terrorist became weak, resulting in a failure to prevent the offender’s action.
Their discussion was framed by ranking terrorism suspects for surveillance and prioritizing suspects on a watch list.
Regarding the difference between strong and weak signals, Phillips and Pohl (ibid.) describe weak signals as fragmented, incomplete, unstructured, environmental data that can provide valuable information regarding context but are notoriously difficult to detect, as compared with strong signals, which are perceived early, and are specific enough to prompt an effective response.
They distinguish strong from weak signals through the probability of being realized.
In their research, Phillips and Pohl (supra) noted prominent examples of missing weak signals in a variety of contexts, including the global financial crisis, the 1986 doomed launch of the Challenger space shuttle, and sounds of explosions on the morning of the 1941 Pearl Harbor attack.
Specifically, due to his “peacetime mind-set,” they note the captain of the destroyer USS Ward misinterpreted muffled explosions coming from Pearl Harbor as “blasting the new road from Pearl Harbor to Honolulu,” despite an unusual encounter with a foreign submarine that same morning (citing Schoemaker and Day, 2009).
Phillips and Pohl (supra) explain the challenge in detecting weak signals as impacted by the fact that a weak signal may not make sense in one context, even though it does in another.
Without the correct context, they explain the weak signal may be misinterpreted just as the captain of the USS Ward did in December 1941.
They note the same thing happened before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, explaining that data expressed through weak signals can be mistaken for “noise,” and not taken seriously.
Overlooking Red Flags Due to Overconfidence
Signal strength can be misjudged due to threat assessment overconfidence.
Phillips and Pohl (supra) characterize overconfidence as perhaps “the most robust finding in the psychology of judgement” (citing De Bondt and Thaler, 1995).
They explain that overconfidence may prompt faulty probability calibration, which can lead to an investigative team incorrectly ranking potentially dangerous suspects.
They indicate some of the ways this can occur as including:
- Overconfidence in assessing a suspect preventing new information from revising the ranking.
- Notwithstanding a red flag, believing a suspect is not representative of the class of suspects believed to be most likely or capable of carrying out an attack.
- Believing a red flag does not overrule other occurrences, leading to prioritizing other suspects ahead of the one with the red flag.
- Missing the red flag to begin with.
When it comes to recognizing signs of danger when assessing potential threats, the takeaway appears to be a willingness to consider information from a variety of sources can greatly enhance the accuracy of both perception and prevention.
This type of research also illustrates why threat assessment teams working together are so valuable, providing a variety of different perspectives.
This article was originally published in Psychology Today, and is used with the permission of its author.
Wendy L. Patrick, JD, MDiv, Ph.D., is an award-winning career trial attorney and media commentator. She is host of “Live with Dr. Wendy” on KCBQ, and a daily guest on other media outlets, delivering a lively mix of flash, substance, and style. Read Dr. Wendy L. Patrick’s Reports — More Here.
© 2025 Newsmax. All rights reserved.
