Made You Flinch!

Using the Startle Response in Defensive Tactics Training

Publication

Renden, P. G., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., & Oudejans, R. R. D. (2016). Effects of reflex-based self-defence training on police performance in simulated high-pressure arrest situations. Ergonomics, 60(5), 669–679. https://doi.org/10.1080/00140139.2016.1205222

What Was the Issue?

The authors argue that much police training is not reality based, but instead consists primarily of practicing isolated techniques. For example, officers primarily learn to punch and kick by hitting a pad and spend relatively little time learning to respond with appropriate force in scenarios. They also argue that many of the techniques that are taught are borrowed from combat sports where the athletes will rehearse the techniques for months and years. Most officers will receive substantially less training, and it is therefore likely that lower level reflexes (such as the startle reflex or flinch) will occur before any other technique can be utilized. This study explored whether training that taught situational awareness and incorporated the startle response was more effective than standard training.

How Did They Look at It?

The authors recruited 11 experienced police officers to participate in the study. The design of the study featured a full crossover where all participants completed both training sessions. Half the group got the standard training first and half got the reflex-based training first. All the participants completed a pretest, a first training session, a post test, a second training, and a second post test. Each step was generally completed a few days apart.

The tests all included a variety of measures to assess stress and six different test scenarios. These scenarios ranged from suspects being verbally aggressive to empty handed assaults to assaults with a knife and pulling a gun. The scenarios were conducted at a training facility with a realistic street environment (think something like Hogan’s Alley at Quantico). The scenarios featured interactions between the suspect and the officer where the officer was instructed to act as they would on-duty. Officer’s performances were evaluated on a variety of measures both before physical contact with the suspect and during contact with the suspect. The pre-contact measures included things like communication with the suspect, alertness, and positioning. Contact measures included things like communication with suspect, proportionality of force used, and scanning the area. They also assessed whether officers used any of the techniques that they were taught during the standard training sessions.

Both training sessions were 90 minutes long. The standard training focused on the techniques that officers are required to demonstrate each year to maintain their jobs. These included punching and kicking a pad, handcuffing against different resistance levels, using pepper spray and their firearms. The officers had participated in training sessions like these throughout their entire careers.

The reflex-based training was quite different. There was a classroom session where videos of real situations were shown and the trainer helped the participants analyze the suspect’s behavior to look for opportunities to de-escalate the situation. The instructor also explained the flinch response and how it could be used in violent situations. Then participants practiced using the flinch response against various types of attacks. In a nutshell, this training focused on situational awareness and using the flinch response as the start of response to an attack. It did not focus on teaching specific techniques.

What Did They Find?

The participants did better after the reflex-based training on almost all the performance measures; whereas the standard training generally did not have an effect. They report on a ton of different measures and there are simply too many things to cover in this post, but the article is open access so take a look for yourself. Interestingly, the researchers gave up on their original plan to assess the use of skills that were taught during the standard training because they were “ . . . only minimally reproduced in the reality-based scenarios . . . .”

So What?

The authors argue that this study shows that the reflex-based training was successful. They attribute this success to two factors. First, that reflex-based training taught trainees to pay attention to the what was happening before an assault occurred, and second, it focused the participants on how to use the flinch to their advantage and continue their actions after they experienced the flinch. The authors also note that the sample size was small and that the study should really be replicated with a larger sample. I generally agree with these observations.

My $.02

I have several observations here. I am not surprised that the standard training did not have an effect. This was the training officers had received repeatedly over the course of their careers. The typical officer in this study had 16 years of experience, so any gains that this type of training might produce would have occurred long ago, and as I will discuss below, this type of training is not likely to be very effective.

As I have mentioned on other posts, I am surprised to see that a small training intervention (90 minutes) produced a big effect. These were experienced officers who presumably had many encounters with suspects over the course of their careers. Assuming that the effects were not a statistical fluke (which they could be), either this was a genius level intervention or the preparedness levels of the officers were so low that even small interventions could produce a big improvement (or both).

I generally like the “cooperate with your reflexes” idea of the training. I have seen several systems that acknowledge these responses and it makes sense to start from that acknowledgment (especially if you are only going to devote limited time to training).

Now let me put on my EcoD hat (you knew it was coming). At the core of the reflex-based training was the “practice what you want to get good at” mantra of this substack. Officers must be good at reading what is happening and reacting appropriately. Standard training (like punching a bag) only teaches a physical action. This physical action is decoupled from all the perceptual cues that the officer must be able to detect and adapt to in order to successfully execute the action against a hostile suspect in the real world. What is the suspect doing? Where are his arms? What part of his body do I want to hit? Am I in position to do that? And so on. To be successful, the officer must instantly (and directly) assess all these factors and many more. The only way learn to do that is to practice against an opponent in situations that mimic the real world. The reflex based training seemed to do that. The standard training seemed to be designed to make the officers good at hitting a pad when they were told to hit it.

Also, I want to emphasize that the researchers stopped trying to code the presence of the techniques that were part of the standard training because they were not being used. This is despite these officers being taught these techniques in the academy, receiving a few hours of refresher training every year, and being tested on them every year. For the typical officer in this study, that training had gone on for 16 years! Yet, they did not use the techniques they were taught!

I could rant about this for a long time, but I don’t want to bore you all, so I’ll try to keep it brief. Lets just talk about hitting someone with your hand. You are doing this to produce some effect. In training, the desired outcome is often ill defined, but lets say the intent is to knock the suspect unconscious. Now imagine all the ways you could use your hand to produce that effect. I can think of a lot of ways - some look like traditional boxing punches, some look like karate chops, some are palm heels and on and on.

What the officers were shown in the standard training was probably something like a straight right in boxing. This is one possible way to produce the desired effect out of the plethora of possibilities you just thought about. It is a good way, but not the only way. To use it in a fight, you have to learn to read what your opponent is doing and see when he gives you the opportunity to use it (you have to learn to spot the affordance) or you have to learn how to force your opponent to move in a way that affords the punch. You can’t learn to do that punching a pad.

Also the straight right you throw in an actual fight will probably not be the “textbook” technique you learned in class. The strike may end up having hooking or uppercutting elements because that was the path you needed to take to make contact. You are moving and your opponent is moving so you will have to adapt the strike in order to get it to work. You have to learn how to do this. Again, you can’t learn how to do this by hitting a pad. I could go on, but I think you get the gist.

So I would argue that they didn’t use the techniques taught in standard training because the training never taught the officers how to adapt them to real life situations. How much of our training is like this? How much more skilled could officers be if we simply made better use of the training time we have?

Our book is now available - Click the picture to order it.