Developing scenarios that evoke shoot/don't-shoot errors

• Published in: Applied ergonomics Vol. 94; p. 103397
• Main Author: Biggs, Adam T.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Elsevier Ltd 01.07.2021
• Subjects: Civilian casualties; Errors; Lethal force; Shooting; Simulation; Unintended casualties; Lethal force; Civilian casualties; Errors; Simulation; Shooting; Unintended casualties
• ISSN: 0003-6870; 1872-9126
• DOI: 10.1016/j.apergo.2021.103397

Multiple errors can occur in a use-of-force scenario, although some critical errors involve unintended casualties where the target should never have been fired upon. Training instructors utilize a variety of methods to ensure military and law enforcement personnel do not inflict unintended casualties. However, there is little empirical evidence about the best methods to design a shooting simulation that might evoke these errors, which is critical to ensure the validity of any assessment or training exercise. The current study analyzed performance across a variety of simulated shooting scenarios developed and applied for military training purposes. Several factors were assessed based upon either the scenario or human performance. Scenario type, number of shots fired, and the ratio of hostiles-to-non-hostiles were significant predictors for the likelihood of inflicting an unintended casualty. This collected evidence should help improve scenario design for future training simulations that will help avoid these critical shooting errors. •There is no guidance in developing scenarios that evoke unintended casualties, making assessments difficult to create.•The current study used a military shooting simulator to explore factors related to inflicting an unintended casualty.•Hostile-to-non-hostile ratio impacted unintended casualties, which parallels cognitive work in go/no-go paradigms.•The discussion concludes with best practices for designing scenarios to assess errors in the shoot/don't-shoot decision.•These best practices are intended to be a starting point for more evidence and discussion—not the final product.