Critical Incident Reactions: A Comparison of Two Studies Ten Years Apart in the Same Police Department

D o u g l a s Gentz T~sa~ Oklahoma

In April 1983 a group of police officers and the police department's psychologist began work on designing a survey to collect information about officer's reactions to what was then called "post shooting trauma." The survey was distributed to officers of the police department in May, 1983. Of the 730 surveys distributed, 164 were returned (22%).

The questions on the 1983 survey asked officers to describe their involvement (if any) in shooting situations, their reactions during and immediately alter the shooting situation, their physical and emotional reactions to the situation over the next four to six hours, and their long-term reactions to the situation. The survey also investigated a number of other questions regarding such topics as how many times officers told their story to investigators, how they would like their family to be notified, who they wanted to talk to about the situation, and how they assessed their chances of being involved in a similar incident in the future.

Ax a result of the findings of that survey, as well as other factors, the department authorized the formation of a Critical Incident Response Team. This group of officers has the responsibility of responding to officers when appropriate and also has the responsibility of providing In-Service Training to other officers. As the years passed after the 1983 survey it became clear thai shooting situations account for only a portion of those situations that can be referred to as "critical incidents."

In an effort to update knowledge regarding police officers' responses and reactions to critical incidents, the Critical Incident Response Team began planning in the spring of 1993 to repeat the survey. The team members worked together to revise the original survey to expand the definition of a critical incident to include more than just shooting situations. The revised survey had three basic purposes:

1. To insure that the team's knowledge regarding officers' responses to critical incidents was current and accurate.

2. To ascertain the perceptions and attitudes of officers toward the Critical Incident Response Team.

3. To acquire information to disseminate to police officers as a part of in-Service Training.

in mid September, 1993, 720 surveys were distributed to all officers of the department. Of those 720 surveys, 356 were returned and tabulated. This repre~nted a 49% return rate which is more than two times greater than the 22% return rate in the 1983 survey. This increase in the response rate suggested to the Team that there was a greater awareness as well as an increased acceptance of the phenomenon of critical incidents by the officers. Another obvious factor leading to a greater response rate was the change from asking about post shooting trauma to asking about involvement in a critical incident. The 1993 survey defined a critical incident as: "An incident with the capacity to generate profound emotion and/or distress." In order to further clarify this definition the following additional description was provided on the first page of the survey:

Characteristics of a Critical Incident: A sudden and unexpected event, not a normal, frequent event. Evokes feelings

not normally a part of everyday life experiences. Can generate distress in a normal, healthy person. Involves some lingering aftereffects which may be physical, emotional or psychological.

Critical incidents are not limited to officer involved shooting or fatality accidents. They may include investigations of SIDS deaths or gruesome crime/accident .,;cenes, and confrontations where the officer perceives himself or herself to be in great

35 Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, October, 1994, Vol. 10, No. 2

danger - whether or not injury occurs. What he, comes a critical incident to one officer may not be a critical incident to another officer.

The 1993 survey asked respondents to list the number of years they had worked for the department. Years of service ranged from less than one year to 30 years. The 1993 survey also asked officers if they felt they had experienced at least one critical incident as defined above at some time during their career. 59% (211) responded that they had experienced a critical incident.

A subsequent question on the 1993 survey asked officers to give a brief description of their most significant critical incident and time on the department when the incident occurred. The clear majority (57%) reported that their most significant critical incident occurred sometime during their first five years on the depart_merit. The following table shows a breakdown of years officers had been on the department when the most significant critical incident occurred:

0 to 5 years 85 57% 6 to I 0 years 34 23% 11 to 15 years 17 I1% 16 to 20 years 10 7% 21 to 24 years 2 .01%

Note. Not all officers who described a critical incident provided the number of years they had been on the department when the incident occurred.

The most frequently reported kind of critical incident was "Death or serious injury of a fellow officer." It should be noted that approximately five months prior to the time that the survey was distributed, an officer was shot and killed during a routine traffic stop. This was the first violent death in the line of duty on this police department in over 10 years.

The descriptions of the kinds of critical incidents fell into sevcn general categories as follows:

I. Death or Serious injury of an officer 57 cases 2. Gruesome scene 45 cases 3. Officer shooting a suspect 39 cases 4. Shot at by suspect OR shot at suspect, but no one was injured 38 cases 5. Deadly force justified but not used 27 cases 6. Near death incident not involving a

shooting 18 cases 7. Mi~ellaneous 11 cases

The 1993 survey asked officers to endor~ items on a list of possible reactions which occurred during or immediately after the critical incident. A sense of slow motion was the most frequently reported, followed by a sense of detachment, followed by tunnel vision as the third most frequent reaction reported.

A similar question in the 1983 survey yielded very similar results - slow motion, sense of detachment, and tunnel vision were also reported in that order as the most frequently occurring reactions. Other experiences reported in the 1983 study included a sense of disorientation, apathy, hearing deficiency, profuse sweating, increased auditory sensitivity, and a sense of serenity and/or calmness.

Officers were asked in the 1993 survey to endorse items from a list of possible physical and emotional reactions experienced beginning with the incident until approximately four to six hours afterwards.

The most frequently reported physical reaction by officers was an adrenaline surge (57%), followed by crying (18%), and tremors (15%). Other reactions included profuse perspiration, dizziness, involuntary laughter, vomiting, affected vision, involuntary urination, extreme fatigue~ headache, and "cotton mouth."

A similar question in the 1983 study yielded similar results - the most frequently reported reaction was an adrenaline surge and the second most frequently reportexl reaction was tremors.

The most frequently reported emotional reaction by officers in the 1993 study was disbelief (44%), the second was anger (28%) and the third was fear (24%). Others included guilt, elation, shame about any physical reactions, loss of patience, preoccupation with the event, and .sadness and/or depression. Results from the 1983 survey showed the same top three reactions but in reverse order. In the earlier study the most frequently reported reaction was fcar~ followed by anger, followed by disbelief.

An item on the 1993 survey asked officers to respond by identifying, from a provided list of delayed reactions, those which they had experienced, or were still experiencing. Among the responses to this question, the most commonly reported delayed reactions were flashbacks (voluntary or involuntary) reported by 92 (4a%) of the olficers who had experienced a critical incidenL The other most frequently reported reactions included insomnia, feelings of depression/sadness, feelings of anxiety, and fear of a similar incident. A partial list of less frequently reported delayed reactions included social withdrawal, fatigue or lethargy, denial (stating "it doesn't bother me at all"

36 Critical Incident Reactions; Gentz

even though it really does), impaired concentration, family withdrawal, increased tendency to criticize self, and avoidance of the scene of the incident_

The 1983 study found that flashbacks were also the most commonly reported delayed reaction, followed by fear of a similar situation, denial of an existing concern, social withdrawal, fear of "freezing up" in a similar situation, a, family withdrawal, feelings of anxiety, increase in insomnia, alcohol consumption, and fear of overreaction.

The 1993 study asked officers to describe how they dealt with the aftereffects of their critical incidents. These descriptions seemed to fit into seven general categories. The most frequently reported way of dealing with the aftereffects was talking with feIlow officers, followed by acceptance. Other responses (in descending order of frequency) were engaging in denial; "no effects to deal with"; talking with family; friends, clergy; negative responses (alcohol, sleeping pills, fatalistic attitude, etc.); and professional counseling.

The 1983 study asked officers if they felt a need to speak personMly about a shooting incident with another officer. A majority of officers at that time reported having had that desire.

The 1993 study did ask officers to list with whom they discussed their reactions, if with anyone at all. Most officers (135 of 211) spoke with a fellow officer, followed closely by those who spoke with a family member/spouse (120 of 2t I). Other responses included speaking with a civitian friend (40), "no one" (36), CIRT team member (23), psychologist or psychiatrist (I 9), and clergy (18).

Officers were asked in the ! 993 study if they were involved in future critical incidents would they prefer to remain at the scene or leave the scene as soon as possible. Of the officers who responded to this question, 59% (161 officers) reported a preference for leaving the scene as .soon as possible, while 4 i % (I 10) said they would prefer to remain at the scene longer. In the 1983 study 57% wanted to leave the scene at soon as possible and 43% wanted to stay longer.

An item on the 1993 survey asked officers their preference about having a CIRT member available after a critical incident. Of those that responded to this item 252 (78%) expressed a preference to have CIRT support as soon as possible. Sixty-three (19%) of those that responded to this item did not want a CIRT response, while 10 officers (3%) were undecided. This question was not asked on the 1983 survey because there was no Critical Incident Response Team in existence at the time.

C o n c l u s i o n s The results of the 1993 survey can be interpreted as a validation of the findings of the 1983 study. Most of

the common reactions to critical incidents that were documented in the earlier study were also reported in the later survey. It is certainly of interest to note that not only were most of the same reactions reported 10 years later, they were also reported in roughly the same frequency. This supports the idea thai although what constitutes a critical incident varies from per.son to person, the reactions to critical incident~ are fairly predictable.

The number of surveys completed and returned in this study was over twice as great as the number returned in the 1983 study (a 49% return rate as compared to a 22% return rate in 1983). This significant increase in the number of surveys returned suggests a greater awareness by officers regarding critical incidents. It may also suggest an increased willingness on the part of officers to identify reactions to critical incidents as predictable and "normal." This shift in perception compared to perceptions in 1983 may be a result of the educational efforts of the Critical Incident Response Team members in Apprentice Police Officer Training, In-Service Training, and other informal training over the last i0 years. The core of that training has been to communicate the concept that reactions to critical incidents are normal, temporary, and treatable. It is hoped that training can continue to provide this "inoculation effect" which seems to reduce the possible negative, long-term impact of critical incidents on police officers who have been exposed to such situations.

m

37 Critical Incident Reactions; Douglas Getz