Force, stress and decision making within the Belgian police.

The impact of stressful situations on police decision making.

1. INTRODUCTION

Police work is, by its very nature, a stressful occupation (Bar-On, Brown, Kirkcaldy, & Thomé, 2000).

Being threatened, attacked, or injured, and regularly using coercion and force as part of their job, can

be very stressful and emotionally taxing for police officers (Anderson et al., 2005; Leino et al., 2011;

Paoline, 2003). Officers may have to make decisions quickly and in stressful circumstances (Terrill,

2014; Timmer, 2005), based on their assessment of the situation at that specific moment. However,

when faced with a dangerous situation they may not always be able to make decisions rationally

(Nieuwenhuys et al., 2012). Research has shown that police officers’ interpretation and perception of

stressful situations is threat-related (Akinola & Mendes, 2012; Bishop, 2007; Nieuwenhuys &

Oudejans, 2011; Payne, 2006). They will assess whether a threat is present, and how threatening the

situation is, and if they feel they might be in danger they will act accordingly.

The police fulfill an important role in society, and it is important to know how officers might act or

react in certain situations, especially when they are stressed or in a dangerous situation. Stress and fear

are inevitable parts of the job, but in Belgium very few studies have examined how they can influence

police work, the associated consequences for the officers themselves, and their impact on police

officers’ decision making process (De Soir et al., 2007; Laureys, 2014). This article reports the

findings from two empirical studies of this neglected area of research. The first is a quantitative survey

of Belgian police officers that explored the prevalence and frequency of different types of force 1, the

experience of stress and fear during police work, and the level of support officers received after use-

of-force incidents (anonymized for review). The second study used a qualitative design and built on

interviews with police officers about their perceptions and experience of stress and their emotions

1 Including verbal force (e.g. as oral commands) as well as physical levels of force (e.g. grip techniques, the use of pepper spray, firearm).

during interventions, by analyzing the decision making process and the factors impacting upon this

(anonymized for review).

We will use those two studies to try to answer the following research questions:

a) The prevalence of stress, fear, and the use of force:

i) To what extent do police officers use different types of force?

ii) How frequently do police officers experience stress and fear?

b) Do stress and fear impact upon police officers’ decision making process?

We start with a brief overview of previous research into police officers’ decision making process, their

use of force, and their experience of stress and fear. Subsequently, we define the methodology of the

two empirical studies, and outline their results. We conclude with a discussion of the results and some

implications for police practice.

2. PREVIOUS RESEARCH

2.1. The decision making process

All police officers have some discretion in how they carry out their work, depending on their level and

function, and they may have considerable autonomy in deciding whether and how to apply the law

(Goldstein, 1963; Rowe, 2007). According to Cohen (1996), this is because, in some situations, the

use of personal judgment can lead to better results than when police officers are given very strict

guidelines. However, as Mastrofski (2004) states, the amount of discretion that officers can exercise

will be broader for some tasks (e.g., identity control, arrests), than for others (e.g., the use of deadly

force).

Many studies have explored the factors that could affect the police’s discretionary behavior, especially

the decisions of frontline officers, who have to react ‘on the spot’. These studies predominantly focus

on three kinds of factors: individual (Anshel, 2000, Crane & Matten, 2010; Loyens & Maesschalck,

2010); organizational (Crane & Matten, 2010; De Troch, 2012; Essen et al., 2016; Johnson & Cox,

2004; Loyens, 2013; Loyens & Maesschalck, 2010; Paoline, 2003; Paoline, et al., 2000; Rothwell &

Baldwin, 2007; Skolnick, 2002; Van Beek, et al., 2013; van Tankeren & van Montfort, 2012;

Westmarland, 2005; Wright, 2010); and situational (Crawford & Burns, 2008; Klockars et al., 2006;

Van Beek et al., 2013; Worden, 1995). Stress and fear are individual factors that may influence

decision making in some situations, as will be explained in the next section.

2.2. Stress and fear

Stress is a normal reaction to feeling threatened or destabilized. Stress can save lives in emergency

situations, because the body develops additional strength to defend itself. Beyond a certain point,

however, stress is no longer useful and can begin to negatively influence health, mood, productivity,

relations, and quality of life (De Soir et al., 2007; Drzewiecki, 2002).

Two different forms of stress can be identified. Chronic stress occurs over a prolonged period and is

experienced by most people at some time in their life. This stress can be caused by everyday events

such as being stuck in traffic, family problems, sickness, or work (Anshel, 2000; Burke, 1994; Violanti

et al., 1986). Acute stress happens when people face sudden danger or a life-threatening situation.

This type of stress can also be caused by a severely traumatic experience, and can result in post-

traumatic stress (Grossman & Christensen, 2004). Stress is not unique to the police, of course, but

police officers will experience stress on a regular basis. In this article, the word ‘stress’ refers to the

acute stress that police officers can experience while doing their job. Officers regularly deal with

violence and face the risk of being severely wounded or killed (Fell et al., 1980; Laureys, 2014;

Lawrence, 1984; Mesloh et al., 2008). A 2006 survey of Belgian police officers found that 21%

experienced stress very often or continuously. It identified the three most important stressors as work-

related pressure, bullying, and the expectations of people outside the police force (Van Ryckeghem et

al., 2008).

Stress can be the result of individual, organizational and situational causes. Individual causes mostly

refer to the police officer’s personal character (Anshel, 2000). Organizational causes include the

relationship between supervisors and police officers, a high workload, time pressure, a lack of

communication, a lack of organizational support, and a macho culture (Anshel, 2000; Laureys, 2014;

Manzoni & Eisner, 2006; Noppe, et al., 2016; Van Beek et al., 2013). Situational causes include

smartphones and social media, which are increasingly being used by members of the public to film

and then comment publicly on police officers’ actions, and verbal or physical aggression towards the

police, which police officers are confronted with almost every day (Duhart, 2001; Laureys, 2014;

Timmer, 2005; Van Beek et al., 2013; Van Branteghem et al., 2014).

Police officers may also experience fear while carrying out their work. Fear is the feeling of being

afraid of an identifiable source, a real danger, that is emanating from a person. Fear is caused by a

surplus of stress. In a situation that invokes acute stress in an individual, it is likely that they will also

experience fear (Drzewiecki, 2002; Grossman & Christensen, 2004).

Stress (and fear) can influence a police officer’s abilities and decision making process (Nieuwenhuys

& Oudejans, 2011; Nieuwenhuys et al., 2012; Noppe et al., 2016). Although acute stress can

sometimes have a positive impact on a police officer’s decisions (Laureys, 2014; Park et al., 1996) 2, its

consequences are mainly negative. These consequences can be individual (negative work attitude,

burnout, depression) organizational (e.g., absenteeism and reduced quality of work) (Laureys, 2014;

Roskies, 1990;Van Beek et al., 2013), or societal (e.g., if an officer displays a negative attitude toward

citizens as a result of being under stress this might undermine citizens’ trust in the police as an

organization) (Laureys, 2014; Manzoni & Eisner, 2006; Roskies, 1990). In this article, we will focus

on the individual effects of stress. These effects can be physical (e.g., poor sleep, burnout) (Axelberd

& Valle, 1979; Blackmore, 1978; Oligny, 1994; Roskies, 1990), emotional/psychological (e.g.,

depression, poor emotional regulation) (Carlie et al., 1997; Chae & Boyle, 2013; Roskies, 1990; Van

Ryckeghem et al., 2008), and behavioral (e.g., alcoholism, avoiding certain situations) (Laureys,

2014; Roskies, 1990).

2.2.1. Physical consequences

2 Examples are stress-related growth (Park et al., 1996), positive personal changes (Curbow, Somerfield, Baker, Wingard, & Legro, 1993) and a more careful or professional attitude and personal development (Laureys, 2014).

When stress occurs, certain physical reactions are set in motion (Anderson et al., 2002; Asken, et al.,

2010; Grossman & Christensen, 2004; Siddle, 1995). The first symptom is a rapid heartbeat, leading to

a higher level of awareness and more energy. This can be productive, to a certain extent, but if the

heart rate is too fast and is accompanied by feelings of fear, negative side effects can occur - physical

performance may decline, and visual and cognitive reaction times may increase (Grossman &

Christensen, 2005; Siddle, 1995; Vonck, 2007).

Stress can also cause auditory exclusion (a temporary loss of hearing). Such sensory exclusion is

significant (and dangerous) because it can limit a police officer’s ability to receive and process

important auditory information. Visual problems may also occur. When police officers are in a

stressful situation, their sight will be their primary source of information. However, due to the

activation of the sympathetic nervous system, the visual system will suffer and the individual may

experience ‘tunnel vision’ (i.e., a loss of peripheral vision with relative preservation of central vision,

resulting in a constricted circular field of view; AlSaqr & Dickinson, 2017, p.61) (Asken et al., 2010;

Grossman & Christensen, 2004; Novy, 2012; Siddle, 1995).

In addition, when the sympathetic nervous system is activated, the hormone cortisol is released.

Cortisol increases the amount of energy available to deal with the stressors, enabling the individual to

react more effectively (Munck, 2000). In the study of Akinola & Mendes (2012), for instance, officers

who had a higher increase of cortisol during a social stress task 3 made fewer mistakes, when deciding

to shoot at a black, armed target, compared to blank, armed targets. Based on this finding the authors

suggested that increases in cortisol may cause a higher level of wariness of potential threats. On the

contrary, an increase in cortisol can also lead to a deterioration in verbal/social abilities and long-term

memory, and the occurrence of selective attention (Dickerson & Kemeny, 2004; Takahashi et al.,

2004). If the sympathetic nervous system is activated by stress or fear, this can lead to vasoconstriction

(i.e., a narrowing of veins, which results in an increase in blood pressure). This will cause a cold

feeling and tingling, and will influence the mobility of the toes and fingers (Grossman & Christensen,

3 Participants had to engage in a short role play concerning a fake job interview, in which they were playing the supervisor who had to deal with a displeased citizen who was complaining about an incident with another police officer.

2004; Siddle, 1995). Stress also has a negative effect on the digestive system, as blood that is needed

to aid digestion is instead diverted to the brain and muscles.

During an acutely stressful situation, the senses are flooded with information, and an individual may

experience tunnel vision. As a result, the individual may have a distorted or altered understanding of

what is happening around them. For example, Artwohl (2002) reported a survey of officers who were

questioned following a shooting incident (N=157) and found that about two or four weeks after the

event 62% reported that they had experienced the incident in slow motion, while 17% felt that they

had reacted at a higher speed than normal. Participants’ memory also suffered, and 46% could not

fully recollect how they had reacted during the incident.

In summary, several physical reactions can occur when an individual experiences acute stress: a faster

heartbeat, auditory exclusion, visual problems, an increase in cortisol levels, vasoconstriction, and

memory loss. These symptoms will have significant consequences for an individual’s ability to assess

a dangerous situation, because they can influence both cognitive and physical abilities (including, in

the case of police officers, their shooting ability).

2.2.2. Emotional/psychological consequences

Traumatic incidents such as violent and/or armed confrontations and resulting deaths can affect a

police officer’s psychological state. Klinger’s (2006) research shows that involvement in shootings

can have both physical (e.g., headaches, tiredness, sleeplessness) and psychological (e.g., reliving the

incident, fear, guilt, nightmares) consequences. Frequent involvement in such traumatic incidents can

lead to posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (Carlier et al., 1997; De Soir et al., 2007; Leino et al.,

2011; Steffgen, 2008). PTSD is a consequence of an acute stress situation and is characterized by the

occurrence of symptoms such as recurring flashback reactions, heightened irritability, avoidance, and

negative thoughts or feelings.

2.2.3. Behavioral consequences

The occurrence of stress and fear, and the accompanying physical reactions, are very likely to distort

an individual’s perception, attention, and interpretation of the situation they are in. These changes

affect the movements and abilities of a police officer, as described earlier. Hence, stress and fear will

have an effect on a police officer’s discretionary behavior.

2.2.3.1. Influence on cognitive abilities

The amygdala is an important emotional center in the brain that regulates fear. Stress and fear can lead

to heightened activity in the amygdala, which is accompanied by a reduction in activity in the

prefrontal cortex (Bishop et al., 2004). The prefrontal cortex is responsible for the cognitive and

emotional functions (i.e., taking decisions, planning, social behavior, and impulse management). A

decrease in activity in the prefrontal cortex will lead people to have a heightened awareness of threats,

and hence they will be more inclined to perceive and interpret situations as threatening (Bishop, 2007;

Eysenck et al., 2007).

If an individual is under stress or experiencing fear, their perception, attention, and interpretation of

the situation is likely to be more threat-related, and the person is likely to react accordingly. Therefore,

their ability to make an objective assessment could be compromised. This could lead to an individual

making decisions based on only a portion of the available information, and might lead to them making

wrong or less ‘good’ decisions (Amir et al., 2003).

Research into the effects of stress on police officers’ decisions about whether or not to shoot

(Nieuwenhuys et al., 2012) found that those under stress assessed a target to be closer than it actually

was. This meant that they absorbed less information and had less time to correctly assess the situation

and decide what action to take. Physical movement is aligned with visual information; stress can lead

to a person’s attention being diverted to specific things, and as a result their movement will deviate in

that direction.

2.2.3.2. Influence on physical abilities

When attention is diverted to threat-related stimuli, less attention will be paid to the execution of

movements. People will perform their movements less accurately, and will make several attempts or

need more time to perform an action successfully (Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2011; Nieuwenhuys et

al., 2008). Officers’ ability to process non-threat-related information will deteriorate, as will their

motor skills (Drzewiecki, 2002; Grossman & Christensen, 2004; Nieuwenhuys & Oudejans, 2010;

Shipley & Baranski, 2002; Siddle, 1995).

As described earlier, stress can trigger a number of physical reactions (see 2.2.1 Physical

consequences) that can negatively influence a police officer’s physical abilities. The gross motor skills

(kicking, hitting) are, for example, the only abilities that will improve when the heartbeat increases

(Drzewiecki, 2002; Grossman & Christensen, 2004; Siddle, 1995).

2.2.3.3. Influence on decisions and abilities related to shooting

Stress and fear also influence a person’s assessment of dangerous situations, and the decisions they

make. These decisions are often made very rapidly. We therefore assume that an officer’s decisions

and abilities in relation to shooting will also be affected in the same way.

Nieuwenhuys and colleagues (2011, 2012) carried out research into how police officers reacted during

a shooting exercise using paint bullets. They found that if the opponent appeared to be threatening and

fired back (high stress level), officers focused significantly more often and longer on the head and

weapon of the opponent (threat-related information) than when the opponent did not fire back (low

stress level). Additionally, they were more inclined to shoot, and more often shot suspects that wanted

to surrender. Following an analysis of the test subjects’ reaction time and visual activity, it was

concluded that officers who were under the influence of stress expected had a stronger expectation of

threat. In those scenarios, shot accuracy, operationalized as the percentage of target hits in response to

gun scenarios, decreased and officers shot earlier (Nieuwenhuys et al., 2012).

Finally, the percentage of hits declines due to stress. Research into Dutch police officers found they

achieved hit percentages higher than 90% in the absence of stress, but these percentages fell to 36%

and 54% during a shooting incident (Naeyé et al., 2001). However, according to Nieuwenhuys &

Oudejans (2011), the officer’s focus on threat-related information does not necessarily negatively

affect the performance of the task. They found that, despite increased attention to threat-related

information, the shooting accuracy of the police officers was high under two conditions: if they fixed

their stare long enough on the targets, and if distraction from other sources of information was

minimized.

3. TWO BELGIAN STUDIES ON HOW POLICE DEAL WITH STRESS AND FEAR

Bearing in mind the different consequences of stress and fear, we wondered how Belgian police

officers handle these kinds of situations. We also wanted to hear their opinions on and attitude to the

use of force. In this section, we explain how we tried to answer our research questions using two

separate studies into police officers’ decision making processes. We describe the methodology of both

studies, and describe (and combine) the results. We conclude with a discussion of the results and

identify implications for future practice.

3.1. Methodology

3.1.1. The quantitative study

As part of her doctoral research, X (anonymized for review) questioned police officers about their

attitudes towards and experiences of using force. In July 2014, some 137 police officers completed a

survey during training sessions in Lagland, Belgium for members of the federal judicial police who

specialize in the control of force4. These sessions are held to teach new techniques and tactics for

controlling force. During the 2014 sessions, participants of a workshop were asked to complete a short

questionnaire about their own experiences with the use of force, and their opinions about its use (see

also (anonymized for review)). A self-report scale on the use of force was developed, similar to

previous research (Kop & Euwema, 2001; Uildriks, 1997). Respondents were first asked if they had

4 In Belgium, there is one integrated police organization structured at two levels, the federal level and the local level. The local police consists of 187 police forces and guarantees day-to-day police matters on the local level. The federal police is organized per judicial district and is responsible for specialized matters or matters that exceed local boundaries. They both have to execute administrative as well as judicial police tasks.

ever used one of the following types of force during their career: verbal or physical force; pulling out

or hitting with a baton; pulling out or using pepper spray; pulling out or pointing a firearm (whether or

not aimed at the target); firing a warning shot or shooting. If they answered positively to any of these

questions, they were asked how frequently they had used this behavior during the last 12 months

(never, once, twice, four times, monthly, weekly, or daily). Second, they were asked about their

feelings of stress and fear during use-of-force incidents. They were asked to what extent they agreed

with the following three statements: “The fact that I could be in danger at any moment while doing my

job is an additional stress factor”; “The fact that I could be in danger at any moment while doing my

job frightens me”, “At the moment when I have to decide whether I will use force, I am already

worried about how I will justify my actions (even if I’ve acted correctly)”. The items were scored on

an ordinal scale (totally agree, agree, neither agree nor disagree, disagree, totally disagree).

In this article, we focus on the responses of the police officers5. The research population consists of

132 male (96.4%) and five female police officers (3.6%). The majority (83.2%) work for the federal

judicial police. When interpreting the results, we must bear in mind that the federal police are

responsible for specialized duties or tasks that exceed local boundaries, and therefore they often deal

with very serious criminal activity. However, a few (11.7%) participants were local police officers and

foreign officers (3.6%) who had been specially invited to learn more about how the training was

organized. Only 1.5% of the participants had fewer than five years’ work experience. Almost every

respondent was a force specialist (92.7%), which means that they have been specially trained in and

consciously work on controlling the use of force. An overview of the respondents’ characteristics is

included in Appendix I.

3.1.2. The qualitative study

Y (anonymized for review) studied the influence of stress and emotions on police officers’ decision

making process and assessment abilities, and on the accuracy of their shooting, by means of semi-

structured interviews. The research focused on the personal experiences, opinions and reflections of

individual police officers.5 Besides the police, 77 soldiers and 21 employees of the Department Waters & Forests were questioned.

A total of 13 police inspectors were interviewed throughout Flanders (recruited through personal

contacts with police zones and snowball sampling) in January–March 2014. They were all frontline

officers who were likely to have experienced unexpected incidents and emergency situations on a

regular basis, and therefore the probability that they had experienced violence while performing their

duty is also high. The respondents were all inspectors who carried out interventions. Six had worked

for the police for between 1–5 years; four for between 5–10 years; and three for more than 10 years.

Two of the respondents were specialists in the control of force.

The respondents were questioned about their experience and perceptions of stress and emotions while

carrying out interventions, and their decision making process. At the start of the interview the

respondents were read a fictional stressful scenario and asked to talk about their feelings, experiences,

and perceptions of it. The use of a fictional scenario allowed respondents to answer the questions more

objectively. Next, the interviewer asked the respondent about their personal experiences, as these are

important with respect to this topic. The researcher wanted to find out how police officers prepare for

and react to dangerous situations, and what happens afterwards. A topic list was used to structure the

interview (Appendix II). The interviews were recorded (Ritchie & Lewis, 2003). In this article,

fictional names have been used to ensure respondents remain anonymous.

3.1.3. Combining the two studies

Combining these studies offers two important advantages. First, both authors use Belgium as the study

area, and both explore how police officers experience dangerous situations and how this affects them

and their decisions. Second, the studies are complementary, both methodologically and in terms of the

results. However, both studies investigate different research populations (specialists in the control of

force versus police inspectors) and use different research methods. Therefore, the results cannot be

linked directly and are not representative of the entire Belgian police force.

The next section presents the results of both studies in terms of: (1) the prevalence and frequency of

stress and fear within the Belgian police and the use of force by Belgian police officers and (2) the

impact of stress on the decision making process.

3.2. RESULTS

3.2.1. The prevalence and frequency of stress and fear, and the use of force

3.2.1.1. Stress and fear

The quantitative study asked respondents about the extent to which they experience stress and fear

while doing their job.

*** Insert figure 1 about here ***

Opinions appear to be divided about whether the danger of their job results in additional stress. A total

of 12.4% experience no additional stress, and 27% slightly disagree that they experience additional

stress. In contrast, 23.4% state that the risk of danger is an additional stress factor, and 11.7%

completely agree that they experience additional stress. In terms of the experience of fear, the picture

is completely different. Only one respondent claims to have experienced fear while carrying out their

job. The vast majority do not agree, and more than half of the respondents claim never to have

experienced fear while carrying out their job.

3.2.1.2. Use of force

Official statistics on the use of force by Belgian police officers are not available. The survey therefore

included questions about the prevalence of and frequency with which police officers had used force in

the past.

As Table 1 shows, only two respondents had never used verbal force (by which we mean giving

commands or threatening with the use of force, and not the use of abusive language). A majority

(83.2%) had used physical force (such as pulling and pushing, arrest and fighting techniques) at least

once in their career. Far fewer police officers had used their baton or pepper spray: respectively 65%

and 41.6% had pulled out their baton and used it to hit someone; 48.2% had pulled out their pepper

spray and 33.6% had actually sprayed it. The use of firearms was remarkably high. Almost 90% had

pulled out their firearm, about 75% had pointed their firearm towards or not towards the suspect,

19.1% had once fired a warning shot, and 16.9% had actually fired a shot towards a target at least once

in their career.

*** Insert table 1 about here ***

Figure 2 illustrates the frequency with which respondents had used each type of force in the last 12

months. This includes the percentage of respondents who replied “never”. The following types of

force had been used infrequently: shooting, firing a warning shot, hitting with the baton, and spraying.

Verbal and physical force had been used more often. Respectively 89.8% and 65% had used verbal or

physical force at least once in the last 12 months. However, the frequency with which those types of

force are used varies a lot. Only 2.9% indicate that they had used verbal force daily, 10.2% weekly and

14.6% monthly, while 19.7% had used it between two and four times, and 22.6% had used it once.

With regard to the use of physical force in the last 12 months, only 4.4% had used it weekly and 6.6%

had done so monthly. Respectively, 16.1%, 21.9% and 16.1% had used physical force four times,

twice, or once. While more than half of the respondents had pulled out (70.9%) and pointed their

firearm not towards (55.1%) and towards the target (58.5%) at least once in the last 12 months, the

majority had used these types of force monthly, four times, or twice.

*** Insert figure 2 about here ***

3.2.2. The decision making process

In the qualitative study, different factors were found to have influenced the officers’ decision making

process. These factors could be divided into three groups (non-exhaustive summary): factors before an

incident (e.g., the (amount of) information that is given, training); factors during an incident (e.g.,

uncertainty, stress); and factors after an incident (e.g., becoming less patient or more careful).

In this section we will not discuss the results for factors before an incident, since that is not the main

focus of this article. However, we note that 7.5% of the respondents of the quantitative study said they

did not rely on basic police training. In the qualitative study, the officers were very critical about the

education and training they had received on the control of force. The respondents unanimously agreed

that they received insufficient training in this area. The amount of information that has been provided

can also impact upon the decision making process. Receiving insufficient information can result in

police officers feeling uncertain about the situation, which can cause stress.

The interviews indicate that acute stress has a significant influence on the assessment and decision

making abilities of police officers. According to the respondents, the stress that occurs in dangerous

situations cannot be compared to the stress that might be caused by non-police-related incidents. Acute

stress is mainly caused by uncertainty about the situation, as they often do not know what will happen,

and officers are putting their own safety at risk. In the literature study, we noted that when police

officers find themselves in acutely stressful situations several physical reactions occur that may

influence their assessment of a situation. The respondents in the qualitative study referred, among

others, to a faster heartbeat, high levels of adrenaline, and tunnel vision (especially when dealing with

someone armed with a weapon). Tunnel vision is dangerous in these kinds of situations, because an

officer might focus on only one or a few aspects of the situation, and not notice other possible threats.

Steven: “Tunnel vision is very common. When possible weapons are involved, or you see the

possible suspect, you focus only on that. You don’t notice other dangers as easily. Your own

safety will then be at risk because you are fixated on that one danger, while there might be

other possible dangers in that building.”

Fear can also influence the decision a police officer makes. The researcher was aware of the fact that

officers probably did not like to use the term ‘fear’ because it does not fit the ‘tough’ image of police

officers. This supposition was confirmed by a small minority of the respondents. It appeared to be

difficult for the respondents to clearly describe what they understood as fear. One respondent did try to

describe what fear does to him when he finds himself in a stressful situation:

Sven: “Fear is something that would initially, let’s say, influence my objective thinking.”

What almost all respondents mentioned was that even during an intervention they already feared what

the consequences of their actions might be. This is not so much fear in the sense of physical reactions

like trembling, sweating, or breathing faster, but it does create doubts about whether to intervene:

Wim: “You can be arrested, as police officer, for simply doing your job. A couple of weeks

ago, we fired at a car that drove straight at us. The people in the car were arrested. But we

had to arrest and detain our colleagues, too, and they had not done anything illegal. It’s as if

the world has been turned upside down. People are afraid to do something because of the

repercussions.”

In the survey, the respondents were asked to what extent they fear justifying their actions after a use-

of-force incident (even if they acted within their rights). It is remarkable that, while opinions are

divided, 46% of the respondents indicate that they are at least slightly afraid of the consequences of

their actions.

*** Insert figure 3 about here ***

In the qualitative study, the respondents indicated that they were similarly afraid:

Walter: “You would be afraid to react, because you will be interrogated about your actions

afterwards.”

It is clear that police officers think about the possible consequences of their actions while they are

making their on-the-job decisions.

The respondents were critical of the way the use of force by the police is handled. Respondents agreed

that being careful about the use of force is a good thing, but they stressed that the potential

consequences for police officers are sometimes blown out of proportion, which leads to fear of using

force. According to the respondents, this causes stress when they have to use force as part of their job.

Other factors were also found to impact on the decision making process during an intervention,

including personal characteristics (e.g., state of mind and the ability to put things in perspective), self-

confidence (a confident police officer is more relaxed and less likely to make impulsive decisions),

and laws and regulations. The latter depends on the severity of the situation: the more severe an

incident, the more likely it is that the police officer will make an intuitive decision.

Finally, some factors were identified that can influence an officer’s (future) decision making process

after the incident had taken place, such as having a more cautious and alert attitude in subsequent

interventions, becoming less patient, and developing prejudices and stereotypes.

4. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUDING REMARKS

In this article, we examined the prevalence and frequency of stress, fear, and police use of force, and

the impact of stress and fear on officers’ decision making process, especially with regard to their use

of force. We set out to identify the factors that influence officers’ decision making in acute stress

situations involving force. We combined two complementary empirical studies: a quantitative study of

police officers’ attitudes towards and experiences with the use of force; and a qualitative study on the

influence of stress and emotions on officers’ decision making and assessment abilities and accuracy of

shooting. By presenting the results of these two exploratory studies, we hope to stimulate future

research in this domain – in particular, the decision making process, the impact of stress, and coping

mechanisms.

The quantitative study found that stress and fear are often present in police practice. It also found that

the use of firearms is not that uncommon in this group of Belgian officers (e.g., 16.9% has fired a shot

towards a target at least once in their career, and 58.5% has pointed their firearm at a target at least

once in the last 12 months). The qualitative study found that stress and fear are always present during

dangerous situations. To a certain extent, acute stress improves awareness and causes an increase in

energy, but beyond a certain point it can lead to a distortion of the senses and motor skills (De Soir et

al., 2007; Drzewiecki, 2002). An acutely stressful situation can also cause emotional/psychological

and behavioral reactions and can influence an officer’s shooting accuracy and the decision whether or

not to shoot.

Both the survey and the interviews show that stress and fear have an impact on officers’ decision

making process. However, other factors also contribute to these decisions. These factors can be

categorized into three levels: before, during, and after an intervention. Therefore, it is difficult to

predict how a police officer will react in a certain situation – it is a combination of all the factors (and

probably others) that were found to be of influence in these studies.

The results of both the survey and the interviews show that almost all respondents are anxious about

the consequences of their actions because they know they are accountable for them. This is on their

mind while they are trying to make rapid decisions in a dangerous situation, and there is clearly a risk

that this anxiety could inhibit their actions. This aspect of police work is significant and could be

highlighted during police training. Although the importance of acting within the law (e.g., legality,

proportionality, subsidiarity) must be stressed, it is also important to make sure that fear of possible

consequences does not negatively affect officers’ assessment of a situation. It is possible that a

reduction in officers’ levels of anxiety about the possible (negative) consequences of their decisions

and actions might reduce the amount of stress they are experiencing, which might impact on their

decision making process. However, this is not entirely clear, and the issue would benefit from further

research.

Policing is an essential function in society, but as a police officer, it can be difficult to meet everyone’s

expectations. One ‘wrong’ decision by a police officer can impact both the officer’s life and that of the

citizen involved. Police officers need to make difficult decisions very rapidly, are influenced by a

range of factors (individual, organizational, situational), and may experience high levels of stress and

fear. Deciding whether or not to use force, whether or not to shoot, or even how to react in less

threatening situations, are decisions that can weigh heavily in this profession. Police officers, as

protectors of our democratic rights, are rightly held accountable for their decisions and actions.

However, the pressure that results from this accountability can make it even more difficult for police

officers to react optimally in stressful situations. This implies that it is essential to provide police

officers with correct and timely information on how to react in specific (dangerous) circumstances.

This can partly be done in police educational programs by providing trainees with sufficient

information when the use of force is legitimate or illegitimate. Furthermore, it is important for police

officers to believe in their own legitimacy, so-called self-legitimacy, because it may influence how

they practice their job (Tankebe, 2014; Bottoms & Tankebe, 2013). They need to be able to justify

their authority to themselves, in particular with regard to the use of force (Muir, 1977). Studies

indicate (Tankebe, 2014; Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Tankebe & Mesko, 2015) that, besides through

clarification of expectations and legal boundaries, police officers may be provided with more self-

legitimacy through their relationships with supervisors, colleagues and citizens. On the other hand, we

need to be aware of the fact that finding the right level of self-legitimacy is very important. Muir

(1977), for instance, illustrated that too much as well as too little confidence of police officers in their

authority to use force may result in problematic behavior (avoiding dangerous circumstances in case of

too little confidence against unlawful use of force in case of too much confidence). More research on

that point is necessary. Nevertheless, we need to look for the right balance in this difficult position, by

providing tools that support police officers in making daily decisions, help them do their job as

effectively as possible and give them organizational support in order to feel confident in using force

when it is legally justified.

Bibliography

Akinola, M., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Stress-induced cortisol facilitates threat-related decision

making among police officers. Behavioral Neuroscience, 126(1), 167-174.

AlSaqr, A. M., & Dickinson, C. M. (2017). A new measure for the assessment of visual awareness in

individuals with tunnel vision. Clinical and Experimental Optometry, 100(1), 61-68.

Amir, N., Elias, J., Klumpp, H., & Przeworski, A. (2003). Attentional bias to threat in social phobia:

Facilitated processing of threat or difficulty disengaging attention from threat? Behaviour

Research and Therapy, 41(11), 1325-1335.

Anderson, G. S., Litzenberger, R., & Plecas, D. (2002). Physical evidence of police officer stress.

Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25(2), 399-420.

Anshel, M. (2000). A conceptual model and implications for coping with stressful events in police

work. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 27(3), 375-400.

Artwohl, A. (2002). Perceptual and memory distortions in officer involved shootings. FBI Law

Enforcement Bulletin, 71(10), 18-24.

Asken, M. J., Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2010). Warrior mindset: Mental toughness skills

for a nation’s peacekeepers. United States of America: Human Factor Research Group.

Axelberd, M., & Valle, J. (1979). South Florida’s approach to police stress management. Police Stress,

1(2), 13-14.

Bar-On, R., Brown, J. M., Kirkcaldy, B. D., & Thomé, E. P. (2000). Emotional expression and

implications for occupational stress: An application of the Emotional Quotient Inventory (EG-

I). Journal of Personality and Individual Differences, 28(6), 1107-1118.

Bishop, J. S. (2007). Neurocognitive mechanisms of anxiety: An integrative account. Trends in

Cognitive Sciences, 11(7), 307-316.

Bishop, J. S., Duncan, J., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004). State anxiety modulation of the amygdala

response to unattended threat-related stimuli. The Journal of Neuroscience, 24(46), 10364-

10368.

Blackmore, J. (1978). Are police allowed to have problems on their own? Police Magazine, 1(3), 47-

55.

Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2013). 'A voice within': power-holders' persectives on authority and

legitimacy. In J. Tankebe & A. Liebling (Eds.), Legitimacy and criminal justice: an

international exploration (pp. 363). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bradford, B., & Quinton, P. (2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic

policing in an English constabulary. British Journal of Criminology(54), 1023-1046. doi:

10.1093/bjc/azu053

Burke, R. J. (1994). Stressful events, work-family conflict, coping, psychological burnout, and well-

being among police officers. Psychological Reports, 75(2), 787-800.

Carlier, I. V. E., Lamberts, R. D., & Gersons, B. P. R. (1997). Risk factors for posttraumatic stress

symptomatology in police officers: A prospective analysis. Journal of Nervous and Mental

Disease, 185(8), 498-506.

Chae, M. H., & Boyle, D. J. (2013). Police suicide: Prevalence, risk, and protective factors. Policing:

An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36(1), 91-118.

Cohen, H. (1996). Police discretion and police objectivity. In J. Kleinig (Ed.), Handled with

discretion: Ethical issues in police decision making (pp. 91-106). Maryland: Rowman &

Littlefield Publishers.

Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2010). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and sustainability in

the age of globalization. New York: Oxford University Press.

Crawford, C., & Burns, R. (2008). Police use of force: Assessing the impact of time and space.

Policing & Society, 18(3), 322-335. Doi 10.1080/10439460802292926

Curbow, B., Somerfield, M. R., Baker, F., Wingard, J. R., & Legro, M. W. (1993). Personal changes,

dispositional optimism, and psychological adjustment to bone narrow transplantation. Journal

of Behavioral Medicine, 16(5), 423-443.

De Soir, E., Van den Steene, P., & Daubechies, F. (2007). Stress en trauma bij de politie. Antwerpen:

Maklu.

De Troch, C. (2012). De deontologische code van de Belgische politie. Cahiers Politiestudies, 3(24),

181-194.

Dickerson, S. S., & Kemeny, M. E. (2004). Acute stressors and cortisol responses: A theoretical

integration and synthesis of laboratory research. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 355-391.

Drzewiecki, S. (2002). Survival stress in law enforcement. An applied research project submitted to

the Department of Interdisciplinary Technology as part of the School of Police Staff and

Command Program.

Duhart, D. T. (2001). Violence in the workplace, 1993-99. Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report.

Washington: United States Department of Justice.

Essen, E., Smit, W., & Straathof, A. (2016). Maakt gelegenheid de dief? Zeven 'red flags' voor fraude

en corruptie in de organisatiecultuur. Holland Management Review, 170, 27-34.

Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007). Anxiety and cognitive

performance: Attentional control theory. Emotion, 7(2), 336-353.

Fell, R. D., Richard, W. C., & Wallace, W. L. (1980). Psychological job stress and the police officer.

Journal of Police Science and Administration, 8(2), 139-143.

Goldstein, H. (1963). Police discretion: The ideal versus the real. Public Administration Review, 23(3),

140-148.

Grossman, D., & Christensen, L. W. (2004). On combat: The psychology and physiology of deadly

conflict in war and peace. Millstadt: PPCT Research Publications.

Johnson, T. A., & Cox, R. W. (2004). Police ethics: Organizational implications. Public Integrity,

7(1), 67-79.

Klinger, D. A. (2006). Police responses to officer-involved shootings. National Institute of Justice

Journal, 253, 21-24.

Klockars, C. B., Ivkovic, S. K., & Haberfeld, M. R. (2006). Enhancing police integrity. Dordrecht:

Springer.

Kop, N., & Euwema, M. C. (2001). Occupational stress and the use of force by Dutch police officers.

Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28(5), 631-652.

Laureys, V. (2014). De politie als slachtoffer van geweld. Antwerpen: Maklu.

Lawrence, R. A. (1984). Police stress and personality factors: A conceptual model. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 12(3), 247-263.

Leino, T. M., Selin, R., Summala, H., & Virtanen, M. (2011). Violence and psychological distress

among police officers and security guards. Occupational Medicine, 61(6), 400-406.

Loyens, K. (2013). Why police officers and labour inspectors (do not) blow the whistle: A grid group

cultural theory perspective. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &

Management, 36(1), 27-50.

Loyens, K., & Maesschalck, J. (2010). Toward a theoretical framework for ethical decision making of

street-level bureaucracy: Existing models reconsidered. Administration & Society, 42(1), 66-

100.

Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Controlling street-level police discretion. The Annals of the American

Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 100-118.

Manzoni, P., & Eisner, M. (2006). Violence between the police and the public: Influences of work-

related stress, job satisfaction, burnout, and situational factors. Criminal Justice and Behavior,

33(5), 613-645. DOI:10.1177/0093854806288039

Mesloh, C., Henych, M., & Wolf, R. (2008). Less lethal weapon effectiveness, use of force, and

suspect & officer injuries: A five-year analysis. Washington: United States Department of

Justice.

Muir, W. K., Jr. (1977). Police: streetcorner politicians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Munck, A. (2000). Corticosteroids and stress. In G. Finck (Ed.), Encyclopedia of stress (pp. 570-577).

New York: Academic Press.

Naeyé, J., Timmer, J. S., & Beijers, G. (2001). Politiële geweldsrapportage 1998-2000. Amsterdam:

Centrum voor Politiewetenschappen.

Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2010). Effects of anxiety on handgun shooting behavior of

police officers: A pilot study. Anxiety Stress and Coping, 23(2), 225-233. Doi

10.1080/10615800902977494

Nieuwenhuys, A., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2011). Training with anxiety: Short- and long-term effects

on police officers' shooting behavior under pressure. Cogn Process, 12(3), 277-288.

Nieuwenhuys, A., Pijpers, J. R., Oudejans, R. R. D., & Bakker, F. C. (2008). The influence of anxiety

on visual attention in climbing. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30(20), 171-185.

Nieuwenhuys, A., Willemsen, G. P. T., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2012). Schieten of niet schieten?

Effecten van stress op schietbeslissingen van politieambtenaren. Apeldoorn: Politie &

Wetenschap.

Noppe, J., Ledegen, E., & Verhage, A. (2016). Welke rol spelen angst en stress bij politiemensen in

gevaarsituaties? Handboek Politiediensten (Vol. 115), Mechelen: Wolters Kluwer.

Novy, M. (2012). Cognitive distortions during law enforcement shooting. Activitas Nervosa Superior,

54(1-2), 60-66.

Oligny, M. (1994). Burnout in the police environment. International Criminal Police Review(446), 22-

25.

Paoline, E. A. (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of

Criminal Justice, 31(3), 199-214.

Paoline, E. A., Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community

policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 575-605.

Park, C. L., Cohen, L. H., & Murch, R. L. (1996). Assessment and prediction of stress-related growth.

Journal of Personality, 64(1), 71-105.

Payne, B. K. (2006). Weapon bias: Split-second decisions and unintended stereotyping. Current

Directions in Psychological Science, 15(6), 287-291.

Ritchie, J., & Lewis, J. (2003). Qualitative research practice. A guide for social science students and

researchers. London: Sage.

Roskies, E. (1990). Type A interventions: Where do we go from here? Journal of Social Behavior and

Personality, 5(1), 419-438.

Rothwell, G. R., & Baldwin, J. N. (2007). Whistle-blowing and the code of silence in police agencies:

Policy and structural predictors. Crime & Delinquency, 53(4), 605-632.

Rowe, M. (2007). Rendering visible the invisible: Police discretion, professionalism and decision-

making. Policing & Society, 17(3), 279-294.

Shipley, P., & Baranski, J. V. (2002). Police officer performance under stress: A pilot study on the

effects of visuo-motor behavior rehearsal. International Journal of Stress Management, 9(2),

71-80. Doi 10.1023/A:1014950602826

Siddle, B. K. (1995). Sharpening the warrior's edge: The psychology & science of training. Millstadt:

PPCT Management Systems.

Skolnick, J. (2002). Corruption and the blue code of silence. Police Practice and Research, 3(1), 7-19.

Steffgen, G. (2008). Physical violence at the workplace: Consequences on health and measures of

prevention. European Review of Applied Psychology, 58(4), 285-295.

Takahashi, T., Ikeda, K., Ishikawa, M., Tsukasaki, T., Nakama, D., Tanida, S., & Kameda, T. (2004).

Social stress-induced cortisol elevation acutely impairs social memory in humans.

Neuroscience Letters, 363(2), 125-130.

Tankebe, J. (2014). Rightful Authority: Exploring the Structure of Police Self-Legitimacy. Retrieved

from Social Science Research Network website: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2499717

Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2015). Police Self-Legitimacy, Use of Force, and Pro-Organizational

Behavior in Slovenia. In G. Mesko & J. Tankebe (Eds.), Trust and Legitimacy in Criminal

Justice (pp. 261-277). Cham: Springer International Publishing.

Terrill, W. (2014). Police Coercion. In M. D. Reisig & R. J. Kane (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of

police and policing (pp. 260-279). New York: Oxford University Press.

Timmer, J. (2005). Politiegeweld. Geweldgebruik van en tegen de politie in Nederland. Alphen aan

den Rijn: Kluwer.

Uildriks, N. A. (1997). De normering en beheersing van politiegeweld. Arnhem: Gouda Quint.

Van Beek, I., Taris, T. W., & Schaufeli, W. B. (2013). De psychosociale gezondheid van

politiepersoneel. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht.

Van Branteghem, J. M., Truyens, E., Van Altert, K., & Verwee, I. (2014). Wat flik je me nu? Een

onderzoek naar geweld tegen politie.

Van Ryckeghem, D., Debrabandere, I., De Witte, H., & Handaja, Y. (2008). Werkstress & politie:

Politiestress? Een onderzoek naar de oorzaken en gevolgen van stress en welbevinden bij de

geïntegreerde politie. Leuven: Katholieke Universiteit Leuven.

van Tankeren, M., & van Montfort, A. (2012). Schieten we er ook wat mee op? De effectiviteit van het

integriteitsbeleid van de Nederlandse politie. Cahiers Politiestudies, 3(24), 131-150.

Violanti, J. M., Vena, J. E., & Marshall, J. R. (1986). Disease risk and mortality among police officers:

New evidence and contributing factors. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 14(1),

17-23.

Vonck, K. D. (2007). Police performance under stress. Law & Order, 56(10), 86-92.

Westmarland, L. (2005). Police ethics and integrity: Breaking the blue code of silence. Policing &

Society, 15(2), 145-165.

Worden, R. E. (1995). The ‘causes’ of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force. In

W. A. Geller & H. Troch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police

abuse of force (pp. 31-60). Washington: Police Executive Research Forum.

Wright, B. (2010). Civilianising the 'blue code'? An examination of attitudes to misconduct in the

police extended family. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12(3), 339-

356.

Tables

Table 1: Use of force: Prevalence (AT LEAST ONCE in their career)

Type of force Results % (absolute numbers)

Yes No

Verbal force (N=137) 98,5 (135) 1,5 (2)

Physical force (N=137) 83,2 (114) 16,8 (23)

Pulling the baton (N=137) 65 (89) 35 (48)

Hitting with the baton (N=137) 41,6 (57) 58,4 (80)

Pulling the pepper spray (N=137) 48,2 (66) 51,8 (71)

Spraying (N=137) 33,6 (46) 66,4 (91)

Pulling the firearm (N=137) 88,3 (121) 11,7 (16)

Pointing the firearm, not towards the target (N=136) 72,1 (98) 27,9 (38)

Pointing the firearm, towards the target (N=137) 76,6 (105) 23,4 (32)

Firing a warning shot (N=136) 19,1 (26) 80,9 (110)

Shooting (N=136) 16,9 (23) 83,1 (113)

Appendices

Appendix I: Overview of the characteristics of the survey respondents

background

characteristics% (N)

sexmale

female

96.4% (132)

3.6% (5)

education

(highest degree obtained)

higher secondary education

police college

non-commissioned officer

commissioned officer

higher education (professional bachelor)

university (candidate or academic bachelor)

university (licentiate or master)

13.1% (18)

16.1% (22)

21.9% (30)

7.3% (10)

25.5% (35)

1.5% (2)

14.6% (20)

service

federal police

local police

foreign police force

84.4% (114)

11.9% (16)

3.7% (5)

years of service

2-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

26-30 years

31-35 years

36-40 years

>40 years

2.2% (3)

7.3% (10)

11.8% (16)

27.2% (37)

15.3% (21)

15.4% (21)

10.3% (14)

9.5% (13)

0.7% (1)

specialist/instructor

control of force

no

yes

7.3% (10)

92.7% (127)

number of years as

specialist

0-5 years

6-10 years

11-15 years

16-20 years

21-25 years

26-30 years

31-35 years

36-40 years

28.8% (36)

32.8% (41)

14.4% (18)

11.2% (14)

8.8% (11)

2.4% (3)

0% (0)

1.6% (2)

Appendix II: Topic list qualitative study

The interview started with a fictive case. You and your colleague are patrolling together daily in the

city. It is a Friday night, you are both tired of your working week and your shift is almost over. You

are looking forward to starting the weekend. The day went by smoothly; there were no incidents.

Around 21h40, you and your colleague receive a call of a fight nearby. A quarrel exploded between

two groups of youth and somebody got hurt. That is all the information you are given. Both you and

your colleague imagined the end of this week differently. You arrive at the spot, it is dark. You do not

know the building you are about to enter and have no idea about the number of youths that will be

inside. You hear a shot, the door is slightly open…

Based on this case, the following questions were asked:

Describe how this situation makes you feel.

Do you have stress at such a moment? How would you describe the feeling of stress? Is this

stress different from stress that is not job-related?

What will you be looking out for in such a situation? What will you do?

Does the presence of weapons impact upon your reaction? How?

Does it make a difference if there are 2 or more (e.g., 10) perpetrators? Which impact does it

have?

How does the absence of more information impact upon your decision(s)?

How will you handle the situation?

Are you willing to use force? Are you sufficiently prepared to use force, both mentally and

physically during your training/career?

The next questions related to one’s personal experiences:

Do you remember similar incidents of your own experience? Would you like to walk me

through your decisions from the moment the call came in: what time was it, what were you

doing at the time of the incoming call, did you know the neighborhood/place where the

situation was happening? Etc.

How did you feel in this situation?

How did your body react during violence-related incidents?

Did you experience fear/panic? If so, can you describe what you felt exactly (mentally or

physically)? Did that fear have any positive consequences? If so, which ones?

How did you react during and right after the incident?

Which consequences were you faced with afterwards?

How did you deal with it?

Did you react in a way that you expected to react?

Did that fear/stress make you react differently (mentally or physically) or did you experience

certain things (such as a higher heartbeat, tunnel vision, auditory exclusion,…)?

Did you expect these reactions?

When you realized that you could not avoid an escalated situation anymore, did you have

sufficient self-confidence/confidence in your abilities to end the situation safely?

At the time that you were confronted with danger/violence, did you think about the

consequences for the perpetrators and potential risks for your own safety?

Did you take laws/regulations into consideration? If so, which one(s)?

Have you ever used violence (self-defense, pepper spray, baton or firearm)?

Did you experience stress while using force?

Were you disappointed in your own abilities?

Did you experience feelings of guilt afterwards? If so, why do you think you experience such

feelings?

Did you have difficulty placing these situations into perspective?

Do you put such situations into perspective? How do you deal with it? What do you do?

Do you feel like you handled the situation well?

Would you have liked to react differently?

Have you ever had to point your firearm at someone?

o If so, did you take the shot?

o How did you feel?

o Do you feel like you are sufficiently prepared, both mentally and physically?

How did the situation end?

Were you offered psychological assistance?

How would you react in the future?

Did these situations have an impact upon your work as a police officer and/or your private

life?

Which measures do you think can be taken to avoid violence-related incidents?

In your opinion, is sufficient attention being paid to the mental side of using violence during

trainings?

To your knowledge, was the situation analyzed afterwards with the aim of preventing certain

situations in the future or to adapt training(s)?

Looking back at it, are you sufficiently prepared? Mentally and physically?