Quantifying Stress in Training

Data regarding the use of gun sights during a gun battle, indicated that only 30% of the officers reported being able to see their front sights, and only 25% used them.

After the PRISim scenario was complete, the officers were questioned about their performance. Comparing those responses to a review of the actual video produced a huge disparity between perceived performance and actual performance. The stress hormones increased, Cortisol an average of 18.15%, peaking as much as 206.41%. Epinephrine rose an average of 131.83%; norephinephrine an average of 66.26%. These high hormone levels impacted memory function.

To illustrate how increased levels of stress hormones can influence an officer's memory, Siddle asked each officer to describe their reaction to the threat on the screen. Half the participants responded that they saw the threat developing and reacted automatically. This was somewhat higher than the researchers believed to be true, based upon the researchers' observations. Researchers also felt that the number of officers who said they saw the threat develop but were slow to react, 38.1%, was slightly less than reported. Almost 12% of officers reported they were totally startled by the threat, but again, researches felt that number was almost double than the number reported.

The officers were queried regarding their initial response to the event. A large number, 88.10%, said they reacted based on their training. This number was much higher than the 66.67% indicated by the researchers. Surprisingly, while nearly 5% said their response to the scenario was fear, the researches felt that number was three times higher, at 16.67%.

Regarding auditory exclusion, recall that an air horn was sounded at some point during the scenario. The research indicated that almost 40% of the officers actually heard it and reacted to the stimulus, while 58% did not hear it. Those numbers are interesting, since a post-video survey question specifically asked if they heard any audio stimulus besides voice and weapon fire. The responses amounted to only 2.38% of participants who said they heard the air horn, even though almost 98% denied hearing the stimulus, many of them did, and either failed to realize it or forgot they heard it.

Data regarding the use of gun sights during the gunfight, indicated that only 30% of the officers reported being able to see their front sights. Of that number, only 25% reported actually using them. Researchers reviewing the footage indicated that 31.25% appeared to use their sights, which closely correlates to the participants' survey responses. Therefore, between 68-73% of the officers did not use their sights while engaged in the gun battle.

Findings with respect to the use of sights, begs the question: "How accurate are the officers when facing an adversary with a gun?" The obvious answer is not very accurate, and the officers' perception of their performance is quite disparate when compared to actual results. An average of 12.71 shots were fired per scenario; the rounds hit their mark an average of 3.3 times. The overall accuracy was computed to be 24.41%, which equates to one out of every four shots fired hits the bad guy. Of course, we're talking averages. Some of the officers hit almost 90% of their shots, yet others had no hits at all. A surprising 8% of officers failed to fire a single shot.

When asked about their shooting performance, the officers' perception exceeded the reality of what actually happened. Most felt they fired an average of 8.26 shots per scenario, and of those shots fired, 53% of them were felt to be accurate. The reality is 98% scored lower than their perception; 15% felt they hit the bad guy more times than they even fired. About 17% had no idea of how many rounds hit the bad guy. The most interesting statistic to be gleaned from the officers' memory of the shooting event is that only 12.90% correctly identified the number of rounds they fired during the scenario.

The above data, as well as the entire Siddle study, is a priceless resource for trainers. We need to endeavor to create the type of training that will maximize the limited time we have, to allow our officers to experience what they're likely to encounter on the street. It's been said that police work is hours of boredom, interspersed with moments of sheer terror. We need to train for those moments.

Stay safe, brothers, and sisters!

  • Enhance your experience.

    Thank you for your regular readership of and visits to Officer.com. To continue viewing content on this site, please take a few moments to fill out the form below and register on this website.

    Registration is required to help ensure your access to featured content, and to maintain control of access to content that may be sensitive in nature to law enforcement.