Abstract
Lethal force training incorporates a wide variety of methods to prepare an individual for a potential use of force encounter. Although many efforts aim to increase realism through stress, there is a critical aspect of lethal force training that does not often receive careful attention or intervention: target design. Realistic targets are essential to simulating a threat assessment that could prompt use of lethal force, making the targets themselves critical to training initiatives. Among various target types, there is a specialized variety known as “shock targets.” These variants have an intentionally complex or provocative design intended to challenge the shooter by making shoot/don’t shoot decisions particularly difficult. We explored the limitations of repeatedly using these targets. Experiment 1 compared two repeated target types among novel threats, including a clearly threatening individual (clear threat) and a seemingly approachable individual attempting to conceal a pointed weapon (shock target). Participants demonstrated robust learning effects for the shock target throughout the experiment. More importantly, the target lost most of its shock value by the third presentation, indicating a valuable but limited use for this target type. In experiment 2, we reduced contextual information to a simple drawpoint, and participants responded as quickly to the obscured threat as if it were clearly presented. These combined results indicate that target repetition is problematic for realistic threat assessments, and trainees will not benefit from repeated use of shock targets.
Similar content being viewed by others
Availability of Data and Material
Data were collected under a military research protocol and remain property of the US Government. Requests for information or access may be directed to the Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton.
References
Biggs A, Doubrava M (2019) Superficial ballistic trauma and subjective pain experienced during force-on-force training and the observed recovery pattern. Mil Med 184(11–12):e611–e615
Biggs A, Hamilton J, Warner A, Doubrava M (2019) Best practices in force-on-force training: achieving maximal benefits from simulated ammunition. Mil Psychol 34(2):5–9
Blacker KJ, Pettijohn KA, Roush G, Biggs AT (2020) Measuring lethal force performance in the lab: The effects of simulator realism and participant experience. Hum Factors. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018720820916975
Boyle MJ (2013) The costs and consequences of drone warfare. Int Aff 89:1–29
Brainard DH (1997) The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spat Vis 10(4):433–436. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9176952
Brockmole JR, Castelhano MS, Henderson JM (2006) Contextual cueing in naturalistic scenes: global and local contexts. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 32(4):699–706
Brockmole JR, Henderson JM (2006a) Recognition and attention guidance during contextual cueing in real-world scenes: evidence from eye movements. Q J Exp Psychol 59(7):1177–1187
Brockmole JR, Henderson JM (2006b) Using real-world scenes as contextual cues for search. Vis Cogn 13(1):99–108
Brosch T, Sharma D (2005) The role of fear-relevant stimuli in visual search: a comparison of phylogenetic and ontogenetic stimuli. Emotion 5(3):360–364
Brown SA, McNamara JA, Choi HJ, Mitchell KB (2016) Assessment of a marksmanship simulator as a tool for clothing and individual equipment evaluation. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 60(1):1424–1428
Chun MM, Jiang Y (1998) Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cogn Psychol 36(1):28–71
Correll J, Hudson SM, Guillermo S, Ma DS (2014) The police officer’s dilemma: a decade of research on racial bias in the decision to shoot. Soc Pers Psychol Compass 8(5):201–213
Correll J, Keesee T (2009) Racial bias in the decision to shoot. The Police Chief 76(5):54–57
Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B (2002) The police officer’s dilemma: using ethnicity to disambiguate potentially threatening individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol 83(6):1314–1329
Correll J, Park B, Judd CM, Wittenbrink B, Sadler MS, Keesee T (2007) Across the thin blue line: police officers and racial bias in the decision to shoot. J Pers Soc Psychol 92(6):1006–1023
Correll J, Wittenbrink B, Park B, Judd CM, Goyle A (2011) Dangerous enough: moderating racial bias with contextual threat cues. J Exp Soc Psychol 47(1):184–189
Correll J, Urland GR, Ito TA (2006) Event-related potentials and the decision to shoot: the role of threat perception and cognitive control. J Exp Soc Psychol 42(1):120–128
DeGue S, Fowler KA, Calkins C (2016) Deaths due to use of lethal force by law enforcement: Findings from the National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 U.S. states, 2009–2012. Am J Prev Med 51(5):S173–S187
Fox E, Griggs L, Mouchlianitis E (2007) The detection of fear-relevant stimuli: are guns noticed as quickly as snakes? Emotion 7(4):691–696
Garfield RM, Neugut AI (1991) Epidemiologic analysis of warfare: a historical review. J Am Med Assoc 266(5):688–692
Getty TJ (2014) A comparison of current naval marksmanship training vs. simulation-based marksmanship training with the use of Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer (ISMT) [Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School]. Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive. https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/41383
Harris KR, Eccles DW, Freeman C, Ward P (2017) ‘Gun! Gun! Gun!’: an exploration of law enforcement officers’ decision-making and coping under stress during actual events. Ergonomics 60(8):1112–1122
Hope L (2016) Evaluating the effects of stress and fatigue on police officer response and recall: a challenge for research, training, practice and policy. J Appl Res Mem Cogn 5(3):239–245
James L, James SM, Vila BJ (2016) The reverse racism effect: are cops more hesitant to shoot Black than White suspects? Criminol Public Policy 15(2):457–479
James L, Klinger D, Vila B (2014) Racial and ethnic bias in decisions to shoot seen through a stronger lens: experimental results from high-fidelity laboratory simulations. J Exp Criminol 10(3):323–340
James L, Vila B, Daratha K (2013) Results from experimental trials testing participant responses to White, Hispanic and Black suspects in high-fidelity deadly force judgment and decision-making simulations. J Exp Criminol 9(2):189–212
Liao SW, Price-Sharps JL, Sharps MJ (2018) Shoot/no-shoot decisions: dissociation, judgment, and assailant/weapon characteristics. J Police Crim Psychol 33(3):209–214
LoBue V, DeLoache JS (2008) Detecting the snake in the grass: attention to fear-relevant stimuli by adults and young children. Psychol Sci 19(3):284–289
Ma DS, Correll J (2011) Target prototypicality moderates racial bias in the decision to shoot. J Exp Soc Psychol 47(2):391–396
Morrison GB, Vila BJ (1998) Police handgun qualification: Practical measure or aimless activity? Policing: An International Journal of Strategies and Management 21(3):510–533
Nieuwenhuys A, Cañal-Bruland R, Oudejans RR (2012a) Effects of threat on police officers’ shooting behavior: anxiety, action specificity, and affective influences on perception. Appl Cogn Psychol 26(4):608–615
Nieuwenhuys A, Oudejans RR (2010) Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of police officers: a pilot study. Anxiety Stress Coping 23(2):225–233
Nieuwenhuys A, Oudejans RR (2011) Training with anxiety: short- and long-term effects on police officers’ shooting behavior under pressure. Cogn Process 12(3):277–288
Nieuwenhuys A, Oudejans RR (2012) Anxiety and perceptual-motor performance: toward an integrated model of concepts, mechanisms, and processes. Psychol Res 76(6):747–759
Nieuwenhuys A, Savelsbergh GJ, Oudejans RR (2012b) Shoot or don’t shoot? Why police officers are more inclined to shoot when they are anxious. Emotion 12(4):827–833
Öhman A (2005) The role of the amygdala in human fear: automatic detection of threat. Psychoneuroendocrinology 30(10):953–958
Öhman A, Flykt A, Esteves F (2001) Emotion drives attention: detecting the snake in the grass. J Exp Psychol Gen 130(3):466–478
Öhman A, Mineka S (2003) The malicious serpent: snakes as a prototypical stimulus for an evolved module of fear. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 12(1):5–9
Oudejans RRD (2008) Reality-based practice under pressure improves handgun shooting performance of police officers. Ergonomics 51(3):261–273
Pelli DG (1997) The Video Toolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spat Vis 10(4):437–442. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9176953
Renden PG, Savelsbergh GJ, Oudejans RR (2017) Effects of reflex-based self-defence training on police performance in simulated high-pressure arrest situations. Ergonomics 60(5):669–679
Subra B, Muller D, Fourgassie L, Chauvin A, Alexopoulos T (2018) Of guns and snakes: testing a modern threat superiority effect. Cogn Emot 32(1):81–91
Suss J, Raushel A (2019) Wallet or gun? Evaluating factors that affect anticipation ability in a use-of-force scenario. J Police Crim Psychol 34:292–302
Taverniers J, De Boeck P (2014) Force-on-force handgun practice: an intra-individual exploration of stress effects, biomarker regulation, and behavioral changes. Hum Factors 56(2):403–413
Taverniers J, Smeets T, Van Ruysseveldt J, Syroit J, von Grumbkow J (2011) The risk of being shot at: stress, cortisol secretion, and their impact on memory and perceived learning during reality-based practice for armed officers. Int J Stress Manag 18(2):113–132
Wilson KM, Finkbeiner KM, De Joux NR, Russell PN, Helton WS (2016) Go-stimuli proportion influences response strategy in a sustained attention to response task. Exp Brain Res 234(10):2989–2998
Yates WW (2004) A training transfer study of the Indoor Simulated Marksmanship Trainer. [Master’s thesis, Naval Postgraduate School]. Calhoun: The NPS Institutional Archive. https://calhoun.nps.edu/handle/10945/1330
Zsido AN, Deak A, Bernath L (2019) Is a snake scarier than a gun? The ontogenetic–phylogenetic dispute from a new perspective: the role of arousal. Emotion 19:726–732
Zsido AN, Matuz A, Inhof O, Darnai G, Budai T, Bandi S, Csatho A (2020) Disentangling the facilitating and hindering effects of threat-related stimuli – a visual search study. Br J Psychol 111:665–682
Funding
This research was supported by the US Office of Naval Research under work unit no. H1719 (N0001418WX00247).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
ATB designed the experiments, collected data, analyzed data, and helped write the manuscript. JH and KJ designed the experiments, collected data, and commented upon the manuscript. GH helped write the manuscript. RRM helped design the experiments and write the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethical Approval
The study protocol was approved by the Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from an approved Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board protocols, numbers NAMRUD.2017.0010 and NAMRUD.2017.0011.
Consent to Participate
All participants signed informed consent documents and voluntarily consented to participate in this experiment.
Consent for Publication
All images used in the manuscript are printed with the permission of the pictured individuals to have their picture used for publications.
Disclaimer
Several authors are military service member or employee of the US Government. This work was prepared as part of their official duties. Title 17, U.S.C. §105 provides that copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the US Government. Title 17, U.S.C. §101 defines a US Government work as work prepared by a military service member or employee of the US Government as part of that person’s official duties. Report No. 21-05 was supported by the US Office of Naval Research under work unit no. H1719 (N0001418WX00247). The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of Defense, nor the US Government. The study protocol was approved by the Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board in compliance with all applicable Federal regulations governing the protection of human subjects. Research data were derived from approved Naval Medical Research Unit Dayton Institutional Review Board protocols, numbers NAMRUD.2017.0010 and NAMRUD.2017.0011.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Biggs, A.T., Huffman, G., Hamilton, J. et al. When Does a “Shock Target” Lose Its Value? Target Repetition Consequences for Challenging Lethal Force Stimuli. J Police Crim Psych 37, 80–90 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09453-y
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-021-09453-y