Shoot/No-Shoot Decisions in the Context of IED-Detection Training and Eyewitness Memory for Persons
Cognitive approaches to training for the detection of improvised explosive devices (IED’s) are of increasing importance. However, there is a question as to the degree to which such training might interfere with other important law enforcement (LE) functions in the field, and the degree to which such training might enhance other important cognitive/perceptual functions. A promising cognitive approach to IED training, the SMOKE system, was provided to respondents, who then responded to shoot/no-shoot decisions, important LE situations of increasing relevance. It was shown that SMOKE training did not interfere with shoot/no-shoot decisions. However, those with SMOKE training performed better than control respondents on eyewitness memory for the perpetrator of a given crime in field-valid scenes. This indicates that cognitively based training may enhance vigilance and resultant memory in field situations.
KeywordsBomb detection training Improvised explosive devices (IEDs) Cognitive training Shoot/no-shoot decisions Officer-involved shootings Eyewitness memory
Portions of this research were funded by a portion of a $5000 Summer Salary granted to the first author by the College of Science and Mathematics, California State University, Fresno.
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
This project received full ethical approval from the Human Subjects Committee, Department of Psychology, College of Science and Mathematics, California State University, Fresno. The project was approved as a “minimal risk” procedure for human subjects.
All human subjects of this research were provided with full informed consent according to the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association, standard for this field. All were adults, and all indicated that they had fully read the Informed Consent form and the research descriptions contained therein, and signed the form to give their consent to participate in the study.
- Boring EG (1957) A history of experimental psychology, 2nd edn. Appleton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Bransford JD, Johnson MK (1973) Contextual prerequisites for understanding: Some investigations of comprehension and recall. In: Chase WG (ed) Visual information processing. Academic Press, OrlandoGoogle Scholar
- Department of Justice (1999) Eyewitness evidence: a guide for law enforcement. Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Grossman D, Christensen LW (2004) On combat. PPCT Research PublicationsGoogle Scholar
- Klinger D (2004) Into the kill zone: a cop’s eye view of deadly force. Josey-Bass, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
- Montejano, D. (2004, November). Fresno police department conference on stress in police work. Fresno, CAGoogle Scholar
- Moore L (2006) Conference on the use of force in law enforcement. Office of the United States Marshall, FresnoGoogle Scholar
- Sharps MJ (2017) Processing under pressure: stress, memory, and decision-making in law enforcement, 2nd edn. Looseleaf Law, FlushingGoogle Scholar
- Sharps MJ, Hess AB (2008) To shoot or not to shoot: response and interpretation of response to armed assailants. Forensic Examiner 17:53–64Google Scholar
- Sharps MJ, Newborg E, Glaser M, Hayward B, Scholl M (2010) Finding IED’s before they find you: the SMOKE system of training for hazardous device detection. Forensic Examiner 19:48–59Google Scholar
- Sharps MJ, Herrera MG, Lodeesen AL (2014) SMOKE: effective cognitive and field training for IED detection. Inside Homeland Security, 2, 9 pgs., http://www.abchs.com.ihs/SUMMER 2014/ihs_articles_5.php, DOI pending. (simultaneously published online in Forensic Examiner, 23, 7 pgs.)