New Study Links Multi-Tasking Capacity To Good Or Bad Shooting Decisions

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Officers who have a greater capacity for multi-tasking are less likely to make errors in shooting decisions, even when emotionally aroused, according to a new study from psychology researchers at Georgia State University in Atlanta.

“The study is an important, seminal work,” says Dr. Bill Lewinski, executive director of the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, “because it directs attention to human behavior factors in deadly force encounters, instead of focusing on race, environment, or alleged officer bias as so much previous research has done. We know from our own scientific investigations that factors of biology, physiology, and psychology are by far the most critical elements in lethal confrontations, and yet to date they are the least studied.”

The new study has limitations, including a small sample size, less than ideal testing conditions, and a lack of any immediate practical training applications. “But it should be viewed as a ground-breaking good start. It surfaced valuable information that now cries out for more thorough exploration,” Lewinski told Force Science News.

The GSU research team, headed by assistant psychology professor Dr. Heather Kleider, set out to determine how differences in officers’ “working memory”—the capacity of the brain to temporarily store and manage information needed to carry out complex cognitive tasks—might affect “judicious shoot decisions” in threatening, stressful situations.

As a psychologist, Kleider in the past has worked with issues of eye-witness accuracy, memory, decision-making, and cognitive processing, especially as related to the court system. In discussions with colleagues, she became curious about how an individual’s cognitive capacity and ability to multi-task might relate to decision-making in aggressive circumstances. With 2 other researchers, she decided to explore WM and the decision-making of LEOs in threat situations, “something that hadn’t been looked at before,” she told Force Science News.


The team’s volunteer subjects were 24 urban police officers, 8 of them female, with a median age of 38 and an average of about 10 years on the job.

During personal 90-min. laboratory sessions, they first were given standard computerized number-and-letter memory and problem-solving tests to determine their individual working memory (WM) capacity; in effect, “their ability to perform multiple tasks simultaneously.”

Next, “to put them in a ‘field-ready’ mind-set,” they were shown a 9-min. video of an actual vehicle stop during which an officer was shot and killed. This was “designed to simulate a threatening in-field situation that might elicit negative affect and arousal,” Kleider explains. The officers’ negative emotional reactions were assessed by measuring changes in their facial muscles and their stress level was tracked by monitoring heart and pulse rates.

Finally, each officer was shown a sequence of 80 slides for less than 1 second apiece on a computer, in an attempt to “partially recreate realistic police shooting decisions.” Each slide pictured a male holding either a gun or a “neutral” object, such as a cell phone. The officers were told to press a “shoot” or a “don’t shoot” key “as quickly as possible in response to armed and unarmed targets,” as they would in the field. Points were awarded for “correctly” shooting an armed target and deducted for “incorrectly” shooting an unarmed target, shooting too slowly, or not shooting an armed suspect.


The researchers found that watching the officer get murdered did increase evidence of negative emotions in the test subjects but did not result in significant physiological arousal. Nor was there any indication that WM capacity or negative emotionality affected speed or produced a bias in the officers that caused them to automatically favor an impulsive “shoot” decision over a “don’t shoot” response.

What careful analysis of the data did show, though, was “a significant positive relation” between WM capacity and accurate decision-making, Kleider states. Specifically, officers who had low levels of WM capacity and who responded to the stimulus video with relatively high levels of negative emotionality had an “increased likelihood of shooting errors”; that is, they had “a greater likelihood of shooting unarmed targets and a failure to shoot armed targets.”.

On the other hand, officers who had high levels of WM capacity scored much better even though their emotionality was high. They shot significantly fewer unarmed subjects and more armed suspects.

These results suggest that “high WM capacity seems to buffer officers against the negative effects of a threat when making shooting decisions,” the study says. It may be that “heightened arousal creates a ‘load’” that “usurps a substantial amount of available working memory capacity.”

Officers with high WM capacity may be able to accommodate this load and “keep more things ‘in play’ at one time.” But in those with lower capacity, it seemingly “impairs cognitive processing ability” and results in poorer decision-making.

Bottom line: “When threatened and experiencing highly arousing negative emotion, police officers with limited working memory capacity are at increased risk of shooting error,” Kleider concludes.


Lewinski points out that the low-budget study was conducted in a laboratory and did not place officers in an environment that approximates real-world conditions.

“The fact that the officers’ pulse rates did not increase significantly during testing is a strong indication that they were not really feeling threatened or stressed,” he says. “In some Force Science research involving highly realistic role-playing scenarios, officers’ pulse rates have more than doubled, for example.

“Yet even with little physiological arousal in Dr. Kleider’s study, the officers with lower working memory showed significant errors in decision-making, and that is an important finding that warrants further research.”

Kleider and her co-researchers, Drs. Dominic Parrott and Tricia King, agree that the study was short on realism. Clearly, Kleider states, “the key-press response in our shooting task is very different than aiming and pulling the trigger of an actual weapon or shooting at a real-life target.” Also, she notes, “the emotional intensity of the video may not have been enough to ‘load’ the working memory of high-capacity individuals.” Had they been more fully aroused, perhaps their decision-making advantage would have been lessened.

The research team has applied to the National Institute of Justice for a research grant that would permit a large-scale study which, Kleider speculates, might ultimately result in a testing protocol that LE agencies could use as part of their recruit-screening process. This might allow departments to identify applicants who need additional, specialized training to compensate for or overcome their decision-making limitations or who should be weeded out altogether.

More work needs to be done before useful training lessons can be determined, Kleider acknowledges. More experiments need to be run to clarify the relationship between WM and “the shooting task” and to answer questions such as how WM capacity can be strengthened or emotional arousal regulated to produce better in-field performance.

Meanwhile, says Lewinski, the study as far as it goes “is right on target in focusing on the kind of human dynamics that researchers should be looking at.”

[A paper by the researchers on their study, “Shooting Behavior: How Working Memory and Negative Emotionality Influence Police Officer Shoot Decisions,” will be published later this year in the journal Applied Cognitive Psychology and is expected to be posted soon on that publication’s website.]

Leave a Reply


  • Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy

Effective date: January 06, 2019

Force Science Institute, Ltd. (“us”, “we”, or “our”) operates the https://www.forcescience.org/ website (hereinafter referred to as the “Service”).

This page informs you of our policies regarding the collection, use, and disclosure of personal data when you use our Service and the choices you have associated with that data. Our Privacy Policy for Force Science Institute, Ltd. is based on the Privacy Policy Template from Privacy Policies.

We use your data to provide and improve the Service. By using the Service, you agree to the collection and use of information in accordance with this policy. Unless otherwise defined in this Privacy Policy, the terms used in this Privacy Policy have the same meanings as in our Terms and Conditions, accessible from https://www.forcescience.org/

Information Collection And Use

We collect several different types of information for various purposes to provide and improve our Service to you.

Types of Data Collected

Personal Data

While using our Service, we may ask you to provide us with certain personally identifiable information that can be used to contact or identify you (“Personal Data”). Personally identifiable information may include, but is not limited to:

  • Email address
  • First name and last name
  • Phone number
  • Address, State, Province, ZIP/Postal code, City
  • Cookies and Usage Data

Usage Data

We may also collect information on how the Service is accessed and used (“Usage Data”). This Usage Data may include information such as your computer’s Internet Protocol address (e.g. IP address), browser type, browser version, the pages of our Service that you visit, the time and date of your visit, the time spent on those pages, unique device identifiers and other diagnostic data.

Tracking & Cookies Data

We use cookies and similar tracking technologies to track the activity on our Service and hold certain information.

Cookies are files with small amount of data which may include an anonymous unique identifier. Cookies are sent to your browser from a website and stored on your device. Tracking technologies also used are beacons, tags, and scripts to collect and track information and to improve and analyze our Service.

You can instruct your browser to refuse all cookies or to indicate when a cookie is being sent. However, if you do not accept cookies, you may not be able to use some portions of our Service. You can learn more how to manage cookies in the Browser Cookies Guide.

Examples of Cookies we use:

  • Session Cookies. We use Session Cookies to operate our Service.
  • Preference Cookies. We use Preference Cookies to remember your preferences and various settings.
  • Security Cookies. We use Security Cookies for security purposes.

Use of Data

Force Science Institute, Ltd. uses the collected data for various purposes:

  • To provide and maintain the Service
  • To notify you about changes to our Service
  • To allow you to participate in interactive features of our Service when you choose to do so
  • To provide customer care and support
  • To provide analysis or valuable information so that we can improve the Service
  • To monitor the usage of the Service
  • To detect, prevent and address technical issues

Transfer Of Data

Your information, including Personal Data, may be transferred to — and maintained on — computers located outside of your state, province, country or other governmental jurisdiction where the data protection laws may differ than those from your jurisdiction.

If you are located outside United States and choose to provide information to us, please note that we transfer the data, including Personal Data, to United States and process it there.

Your consent to this Privacy Policy followed by your submission of such information represents your agreement to that transfer.

Force Science Institute, Ltd. will take all steps reasonably necessary to ensure that your data is treated securely and in accordance with this Privacy Policy and no transfer of your Personal Data will take place to an organization or a country unless there are adequate controls in place including the security of your data and other personal information.

Disclosure Of Data

Legal Requirements

Force Science Institute, Ltd. may disclose your Personal Data in the good faith belief that such action is necessary to:

  • To comply with a legal obligation
  • To protect and defend the rights or property of Force Science Institute, Ltd.
  • To prevent or investigate possible wrongdoing in connection with the Service
  • To protect the personal safety of users of the Service or the public
  • To protect against legal liability

Security Of Data

The security of your data is important to us, but remember that no method of transmission over the Internet, or method of electronic storage is 100% secure. While we strive to use commercially acceptable means to protect your Personal Data, we cannot guarantee its absolute security.

Service Providers

We may employ third party companies and individuals to facilitate our Service (“Service Providers”), to provide the Service on our behalf, to perform Service-related services or to assist us in analyzing how our Service is used.

These third parties have access to your Personal Data only to perform these tasks on our behalf and are obligated not to disclose or use it for any other purpose.


We may use third-party Service Providers to monitor and analyze the use of our Service.

  • Google AnalyticsGoogle Analytics is a web analytics service offered by Google that tracks and reports website traffic. Google uses the data collected to track and monitor the use of our Service. This data is shared with other Google services. Google may use the collected data to contextualize and personalize the ads of its own advertising network.You can opt-out of having made your activity on the Service available to Google Analytics by installing the Google Analytics opt-out browser add-on. The add-on prevents the Google Analytics JavaScript (ga.js, analytics.js, and dc.js) from sharing information with Google Analytics about visits activity.For more information on the privacy practices of Google, please visit the Google Privacy & Terms web page: https://policies.google.com/privacy?hl=en

Links To Other Sites

Our Service may contain links to other sites that are not operated by us. If you click on a third party link, you will be directed to that third party’s site. We strongly advise you to review the Privacy Policy of every site you visit.

We have no control over and assume no responsibility for the content, privacy policies or practices of any third party sites or services.

Children’s Privacy

Our Service does not address anyone under the age of 18 (“Children”).

We do not knowingly collect personally identifiable information from anyone under the age of 18. If you are a parent or guardian and you are aware that your Children has provided us with Personal Data, please contact us. If we become aware that we have collected Personal Data from children without verification of parental consent, we take steps to remove that information from our servers.

Changes To This Privacy Policy

We may update our Privacy Policy from time to time. We will notify you of any changes by posting the new Privacy Policy on this page.

We will let you know via email and/or a prominent notice on our Service, prior to the change becoming effective and update the “effective date” at the top of this Privacy Policy.

You are advised to review this Privacy Policy periodically for any changes. Changes to this Privacy Policy are effective when they are posted on this page.

Contact Us

If you have any questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact us:

  • By email: support@forcescience.org
  • By visiting this page on our website: https://www.forcescience.org/contact
  • By phone number: 866-683-1944
  • By mail: Force Science Institute, Ltd.