Threat-Related Attentional Biases in Police Officers and Martial Artists: Investigating Potential Differences Using the E-Stroop and Dot Probe Task

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the possible development of threat-related attentional bias due to the work as a police officer. For this purpose, we compared four groups, differing with regard to their experience in policing and martial arts: (a) police officers with no experience in martial arts (n = 74), (b) martial artists (n = 50), (c) police officers with martial arts experience (n = 33), and (d) a control group (n = 48). Participants completed the Dot Probe Task, the Emotional Stroop Task, and the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The results on the Dot Probe and the Emotional Stroop Task showed that the groups did not differ with regard to threat-related attentional biases. However, the control group showed higher measures of trait anxiety compared with the other groups. The results are discussed in the light of police use of force and martial arts training, as well as with regard to optimizing psychological measures to capture functional threat-related attentional bias.

Full text

https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017712776
SAGE Open
April-June 2017: 1 –17
© The Author(s) 2017
DOI: 10.1177/2158244017712776
journals.sagepub.com/home/sgo
Creative Commons CC BY: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License
(http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits any use, reproduction and distribution of
the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
Article
Introduction
Police officers are regularly confronted with threatening sit-
uations in the line of duty (Ellrich, 2016). Making situation-
ally adequate decisions requires them generate and maintain
situational awareness (SA), which refers to the cognitive
processes that are involved in perceiving and comprehending
the meaning of a given situation (Endsley, 1995; Endsley &
Robertson, 2000; Klein, 2000; Saus et al., 2006). A critical
component of SA is the fundamental perception of the ele-
ments of a particular environment (Saus et al., 2006). In this
context, the allocation of attention to potential threat cues is
a fundamental skill for any police officer, as identifying real
threats can result in the prevention of harm (College of
Policing, 2013; Füllgrabe, 2014).
Regarding human survival in general, the perception of
biologically relevant stimuli, particularly life-threatening
ones, is essential. The threat-related monitoring of an envi-
ronment allows for efficient and accurate detection of and
behavioral responses to potential threats. It involves the con-
tinuous balancing of various cognitive resources and
response patterns (Adolphs, 2013; Davis & Whalen, 2001;
Liddell et al., 2005; Naim et al., 2015; Pessoa & Adolphs,
2010; Zald, 2003), in which the amygdalae play a central
role (Gur et al., 2002; Hariri, Bookheimer, & Mazziotta,
2000; Morris et al., 1996; Phillips et al., 1998; L. M. Williams
et al., 2001). Healthy adaptation requires the individual to
allocate attention to genuine threats while ignoring similar
but nonthreatening stimuli (Naim et al., 2015). This delicate
balance can be disrupted by traumatic events and give rise to
threat avoidance and threat-related hypervigilance, which
are often referred to as “clinical symptoms” (Das et al., 2005;
Ehlers & Clark, 2000). For example, cognitive biases such as
threat-related attentional biases have been identified as one
of the most consistently demonstrated cognitive correlates of
anxiety disorders (Bar-Haim, Lamy, Pergamin, Bakermans-
Kranenburg, & van IJzendoorn, 2007; Naim et al., 2015;
Yiend, 2010). However, cognitive biases have been demon-
strated to exist in populations that are exposed to life-threat-
ening dangers on a regular basis (Bar-Haim et al., 2010;
Todd et al., 2015). Therefore, the valence of cognitive bias
712776SGOXXX10.1177/2158244017712776SAGE OpenStaller et al.
research-article2017
1University of Liverpool, UK
2Leeds Beckett University, UK
3German Sport University Cologne, Germany
Corresponding Author:
Mario S. Staller, Department of Psychological Sciences,
Tactical Decision Making Research Group, University of Liverpool,
Eleanor Rathbone Building, Liverpool L69 7ZX, UK.
Email: mario.staller@liverpool.ac.uk
Threat-Related Attentional Biases in
Police Officers and Martial Artists:
Investigating Potential Differences Using
the E-Stroop and Dot Probe Task
Mario S. Staller1,2, Benjamin Zaiser1, Swen Körner3,
and Jon C. Cole1
Abstract
In this study, we investigated the possible development of threat-related attentional bias due to the work as a police officer.
For this purpose, we compared four groups, differing with regard to their experience in policing and martial arts: (a) police
officers with no experience in martial arts (n = 74), (b) martial artists (n = 50), (c) police officers with martial arts experience
(n = 33), and (d) a control group (n = 48). Participants completed the Dot Probe Task, the Emotional Stroop Task, and the
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. The results on the Dot Probe and the Emotional Stroop Task showed that the groups did not
differ with regard to threat-related attentional biases. However, the control group showed higher measures of trait anxiety
compared with the other groups. The results are discussed in the light of police use of force and martial arts training, as well
as with regard to optimizing psychological measures to capture functional threat-related attentional bias.
Keywords
threat-related attentional bias, Emotional Stroop Task, Dot Probe Task, trait anxiety, policing, martial arts

2 SAGE Open
per se is neutral. Depending on the environment and the tasks
individuals have to fulfill on a regular basis, the development
of cognitive biases can be functional (i.e., normal defensive
behavior) or dysfunctional (i.e., psychological disorder;
Stein & Nesse, 2011). Compared with other professions, the
proper allocation of attention to such threats on a regular
basis is unique to the work of police (and military) personnel,
as the effective and proportionate responding of officers
requires the rapid and efficient detection of lethal threats in
police–citizen encounters. As such, it represents an adaptive
(functional) use of “genetically hardwired” structures
involved in human defensive behavior, coupled with experi-
ences of the environment that individuals operate in. On the
contrary, if people inhabit environments that are mostly free
of lethal threats, the tendency to interpret ambiguous stimuli
as potentially life-threatening no longer serves the adaptive
use that it once did. Cognitive resources that have been pre-
viously used for the constant assessment of threat have been
freed, which allows for their reallocation to other aspects of
cognition (Cisler & Koster, 2010; M. W. Eysenck, Derakshan,
Santos, & Calvo, 2007; M. W. Eysenck, Payne, & Derakshan,
2005). This, in turn, reflects an adaptive development. As a
consequence, constant feelings of uneasiness and danger in
environments that are mostly free of lethal threats are nowa-
days considered to be a pathological trait (Bishop, 2008a).
In the context of policing, little is known about the potential
development of cognitive biases stemming from routine expo-
sure to potentially life-threatening situations. In this study, we
aim to assess whether police officers develop threat-related
attentional bias as a result of their professional experience.
Threat-Related Attentional Bias
There are three observable components of the threat-related
attentional bias: (a) an attentional bias toward threat, (b) an
attentional bias away from threat, or (c) difficulties in the dis-
engagement from threatening stimuli (Cisler & Koster, 2010).
An attentional bias toward threat refers to the tendency to
allocate more attention toward threatening stimuli relative to
neutral stimuli (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Cisler & Koster, 2010;
H. J. Eysenck, 1992; MacLeod, Mathews, & Tata, 1986;
Mogg & Bradley, 1998). A vast amount of research demon-
strates that anxious individuals show an attentional bias
toward threatening sources of information, whereas this effect
is less consistent or not observed in nonanxious individuals
(Bar-Haim et al., 2010; Bar-Haim et al., 2007; (Mogg &
Bradley, 1998; Shechner et al., 2012; J. M. G. Williams,
Mathews, & MacLeod, 1996). As anxiety serves the function
of threat anticipation (J. M. G. Williams, Watts, MacLeod, &
Mathews, 1997), the threat-related attentional bias has mostly
been observed in relation to differing levels of pathology
(Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Beck & Clark, 1997; Blanchette &
Richards, 2010; Cisler & Koster, 2010; H. J. Eysenck, 1992).
According to these findings, highly anxious individuals are
oversensitive in the detection of threat—a phenomenon
referred to as hypervigilance (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Koster,
Crombez, Verschuere, & De Houwer, 2004; Naim et al.,
2015; Sheppes, Luria, Fukuda, & Gross, 2013).
Although most studies find attentional bias toward threat in
anxiety disorders, results from laboratory-based research show
that acute stress can also lead anxious individuals to shift their
attention away from threats (Amir et al., 1996; Garner, Mogg,
& Bradley, 2006; Helfinstein, White, Bar-Haim, & Fox, 2008;
Mansell, Clark, Ehlers, & Chen, 1999; Mathews & Sebastian,
2008). Similar results have been shown in combat veterans
with posttraumatic stress disorder (Constans, McCloskey,
Vasterling, Brailey, & Mathews, 2004; Sipos, Bar-Haim,
Abend, Adler, & Bliese, 2014; Wald, Lubin, et al., 2011; Wald,
Shechner, et al., 2011), and also in civilians who are regularly
exposed to life-threatening danger (Bar-Haim et al., 2010). A
third characteristic of threat-related attentional bias is the dif-
ficulty in disengagement (i.e., it is harder to disengage atten-
tion from a threat stimulus relative to a neutral stimulus; Cisler
& Olatunji, 2010; Mogg, Holmes, Garner, & Bradley, 2008;
Salemink, van den Hout, & Kindt, 2007).
Reviewing evidence regarding the three layers of atten-
tional bias (observable bias, mediating mechanisms, infor-
mation processing), Cisler and Koster (2010) concluded
that interactions between the mediating mechanisms and
attentional components seem to be relatively well sup-
ported, although the interaction between the stage of infor-
mation processing, mediating mechanism, and attentional
components remains unclear. Research investigating the
relationship between facilitated attention and disengage-
ment showed that, on one hand, difficulties in disengage-
ment can be observed without facilitated attention (Amir,
Elias, Klumpp, & Przeworski, 2003; E. E. Fox, Russo,
Bowles, & Dutton, 2001; Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002;
Rinck, Becker, Kellermann, & Roth, 2003; Rinck, Reinecke,
Ellwart, Heuer, & Becker, 2005; Yiend & Mathews, 2001),
On the other hand, facilitated attention almost regularly
occurs with difficulty in disengagement (Byrne & Eysenck,
1995; Gilboa-Schechtman, Foa, & Amir, 1999; Koster,
Crombez, Van Damme, Verschuere, & De Houwer, 2005;
Koster, Verschuere, Crombez, & Van Damme, 2005;
Miltner, Krieschel, Hecht, Trippe, & Weiss, 2004; Rinck
et al., 2003; Rinck et al., 2005; Van Damme, Crombez,
Hermans, Koster, & Eccleston, 2006). Whereas difficulties
in disengagement are linked with higher order control
mechanisms, the evidence supports the claim that facili-
tated attention is linked to automatic stages of processing
(Bishop, 2008b; Bishop, Duncan, Brett, & Lawrence,
2004). Correspondingly, it seems reasonable to conclude
that when both occur together, facilitated attention precedes
difficulty in disengagement (Cisler & Koster, 2010). A tem-
poral structure of attentional biases seems to be supported
by the vigilance-avoidance hypothesis (e.g., Mogg, Bradley,
Miles, & Dixon, 2004), which proposes that anxious indi-
viduals first demonstrate facilitated attention to threat
before avoiding the threat stimulus.

Staller et al. 3
Several cognitive theories have been put forward to
explain the relationship between attentional bias and fear or
anxiety (Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Beck & Clark, 1997; M. W.
Eysenck, 1992, 1997; Mogg & Bradley, 1998; J. M. G.
Williams et al., 1997; J. M. G. Williams, Williams, Watts,
MacLeod, & Mathews, 1988). However, in the context of
policing, threat-related attentional bias may be the result of
prior learning (Öhman, 1996; Öhman & Wiens, 2004).
According to Öhman (1996), a feature-detection model of
attention to threat serves as an evolutionarily adaptive pro-
cess that sensitizes the expectancy system of the individual
to specific stimuli based on emotional memories. Hence, if a
person regularly encounters threats in his or her typical envi-
ronment, attentional biases would be expected to develop as
a function of experiential learning. As police officers are
regularly exposed to situations that have the potential for
harmful or life-threatening events in comparison with civil-
ians, threat-related attentional bias may develop. This study
tries to assess whether individuals who are routinely exposed
to potentially life-threatening scenarios would display simi-
lar attentional biases to those found in anxious populations in
the absence of significant anxiety, which is typically not
found in police officers (Evans, Coman, & Stanley, 1992).
Studies examining the time course of attentional biases
show a typical vigilance-avoidance pattern, in which earlier
processing is connected to orientation, whereas motivational
processes are responsible for maintenance of attention
(Zvielli, Bernstein, & Koster, 2014). It has been proposed that
separate neural subsystems underlie these different cognitive
operations of attentional shifting and maintenance (M. Field,
Mogg, Zetteler, & Bradley, 2004; LaBerge, 1995). Initial
shifting is a subconscious effort and only measurable through
paradigms that present stimuli at very brief exposures (M.
Field, Mogg, Zetteler, et al., 2004). For instance, Stormark,
Field, Hugdahl, and Horowitz (1997) found an attentional
bias for alcohol-related words in abstinent alcoholics, when
the stimuli were presented for 100 ms. This suggests that
attentional biases can be demonstrated for very briefly pre-
sented stimuli. On the contrary, abstinent alcohol-dependent
participants showed, after treatment, bias to avoid alcohol-
related cues, as shown by faster reaction times (RTs) to tar-
gets, invalidly cued by alcohol-related words at a 500 ms
interval presentation. This seems to represent a bias in main-
tained attention that is more likely to be revealed when stim-
uli are presented for longer durations (M. Field, Mogg,
Zetteler, et al., 2004). Most studies investigating threat-related
attentional bias involve clearly visible stimuli that are pre-
sented for at least 500 ms, to allow for conscious processing
(Bar-Haim et al., 2007). Results of recent studies using longer
exposure times found attentional bias toward and/or away
from threat stimuli (Bar-Haim et al., 2010; Naim et al., 2015;
Zvielli et al., 2014), which is in line with the vigilance-avoid-
ance pattern. Yet, the finding of an attentional bias in response
to a stimulus that is presented for a longer duration (i.e.,
supraliminal exposure) does not allow for the distinction
between the contributions of a preconscious bias to the threat-
ening stimulus and a bias that requires awareness of that stim-
ulus. The exposure of stimuli for very brief durations (i.e.,
subliminal exposure) prevents the stimuli from reaching
awareness (Di Lollo, Enns, & Rensick, 2000), allowing for
the investigation of early automatic rather than later con-
scious processing of threat-related stimuli. Finding a bias
using subliminal exposure of the stimuli can be accounted for
only by an early preconscious bias (Bar-Haim et al., 2007).
Hypotheses
We hypothesized that regular exposure to threat as a police
officer will lead to the development of a (functional) threat-
related attentional bias that is not a result of anxiety. More
specifically, police officers will demonstrate a threat-related
attentional bias, both subliminally and supraliminally, as
shown by significant levels of attentional vigilance and dif-
ficulties in disengaging from threatening stimuli (Hypothesis
1). Furthermore, we hypothesized that the state and trait anx-
iety of police officers will not be higher than the controls
(Hypothesis 2). To account for the effects of regular expo-
sure to threats in training settings, and viewing that some
police officers may have martial arts experience, a group of
martial artists (without policing experience) was also incor-
porated in this study.
Method
Participants
A total of 205 participants from Germany (n = 155) and the
United Kingdom (n = 50) took part in this study. Police offi-
cers were recruited through an opportunistic sampling
method. Martial artists and the control group were recruited
via social media (e.g., Facebook). Participants were asked
about their experience as police officers and martial arts and
were subsequently assigned to different groups for the study.
These groups consisted of (a) police officers (n = 74) with no
experience in martial arts, except for police use of force
training; (b) martial artists (n = 50), who that had regular
training experience in martial arts, but were not part of a
police force; (c) police officers with additional martial arts
experience (n = 33); and (d) a control group (n = 48) with no
experience in the policing sector and no experience in any
martial arts or combat sports. The demographic data of the
participants are shown in Table 1. Two cases of missing data
occurred in the Dot Probe Task, leaving the final sample at
203 participants in this task.
Materials
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. State and trait anxiety were mea-
sured using the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI, Spiel-
berger, Gorsuch, & Lushene, 1970; for the German version see

4 SAGE Open
Laux, Glanzmann, Schaffner, & Spielberger, 1981). The STAI
measures stable tendencies of anxiety (trait anxiety) and feel-
ings of anxiety at the time of the testing (state anxiety). The
STAI consists of two parts, each containing 20 items, which
require participants to rate how they feel on a 4-point Likert-
type scale in terms of “right now” (state) and “in general”
(trait). The scale has been shown to be high in convergence and
discriminant validity (Spielberger, Gorsuch, Lushene, Vagg, &
Jacobs, 1983) and demonstrates a high level of internal consis-
tency (Grös, Antony, Simms, & McCabe, 2007).
Dot Probe Task. The Dot Probe Task was used as a measure of
subliminal attentional bias. The task was programmed accord-
ing to MacLeod, Soong, Rutherford, and Campbell (2007)
using Inquisit (“Inquisit 4.0.5.0.,” 2014) allowing for the mea-
surement of response times with millisecond accuracy (De
Clercq, Crombez, Buysse, & Roeyers, 2003). The task was
configured to deliver 96 trials of stimulus word pairs, each
containing one threatening and one neutral word that were
matched on length and frequency (Kučera & Francis, 1967;
MacLeod, Rutherford, Campbell, Ebsworthy, & Holker,
2002). For the German version of the Dot Probe Task, words
were translated from English to German and then back-trans-
lated by a separate party using structured guidelines (Brislin,
1970; Geisinger, 1994). The words used with the UK and the
German samples are displayed in the appendix.
The mechanism responsible for the initial shift of gaze
is a rapid procedure that can only be assessed when stim-
uli are presented at brief exposure times (M. Field, Mogg,
& Bradley, 2004). As it is difficult to disentangle the effect
of initial orientation and cognitive-emotional processes,
two exposure times of the stimulus word pair (50 and 200
ms) were used to measure different levels of subliminal
attention.
Participants were presented with a fixation cross (500
ms), followed by the simultaneously presented stimuli
(word pair) for the duration of the set exposure time (50 or
200 ms). Across these trials, threat word position (upper vs.
lower screen) and probe type (“<” vs. “>”) were balanced
in a way that after every eight participants, each word pair
was presented once under each unique experimental condi-
tion. The order of trial presentation was randomized for
each participant. Participants were instructed to indicate
whether a “<” or “>” probe was presented by pressing
either the left arrow or the right arrow key. Furthermore,
responses had to be as quickly but as accurately as possible.
Participants were told to place their fingers on the two
response keys to allow for quick responses. After each trial,
the fixation cross of the next trial was presented on the
screen. On incongruent trials (IT), the probe appeared in
the location of the neutral stimulus, whereas in congruent
trails (CT) the probe appeared in the location of the threat
stimulus (Zvielli et al., 2014). The dependent measure was
the response latency for IT and CT, which was timed from
the appearance of each probe until detection of the associ-
ated response. Bias scores were computed by subtracting
mean response times of CT from mean response times of IT
(Bar-Haim et al., 2007; Zvielli et al., 2014). This bias score
was computed per participant for the 50 and 200 ms condi-
tions. A positive bias score indicates attentional vigilance
toward threat as response times are shorter on CT, whereas
negative scores indicate an attentional avoidance of threat
as attention must be focused back to the vicinity of the
threat, increasing the response times (MacLeod et al.,
2007). Reaction time outliers were dealt with using an
upper cut-off of two standard deviations above the mean
(Mansell et al., 1999; Mogg, Bradley, & Williams, 1995)
and a lower cut-off of 250 ms (Ratcliff, 1993).
Table 1. Demographical Data of Participants.
n
Sex Age Experience in police use of force Experience in martial arts
Male Female M SD M SD M SD
Germany 155
Police 61 48 13 30.11 8.16 8.64 8.58 na na
Martial arts 46 43 3 31.67 11.30 na na 12.50 10.85
Police and martial arts 28 27 1 29.75 5.93 6.64 5.10 9.98 7.68
Control 20 8 12 34.05 10.13 na na na na
UK 50
Police 13 13 0 35.77 7.73 12.27 7.81 na na
Martial arts 4 1 3 34.75 19.81 na na 3.25 1.89
Police and martial arts 5 5 0 36.20 5.26 9.60 5.85 8.80 11.90
Control 28 7 21 31.46 13.80 na na na na
All 205
Police 74 61 13 31.11 8.32 9.28 8.51 na na
Martial arts 50 44 6 31.92 11.92 na na 11.74 10.71
Police and martial arts 33 32 1 30.73 6.22 7.35 5.22 9.80 8.22
Control 48 15 33 32.54 12.35 na na na na

Staller et al. 5
Emotional Stroop Task. The Emotional Stroop Task, as
described by Smith and Waterman (2005), was used as a
measure of supraliminal attention. The task consisted of 125
experimental trials: 25 aggression-related words, 25 positive
emotion–related words, 25 negative emotion–related words,
25 neutral words, and 25 color words (see the appendix). The
color words were always incongruent with the color pre-
sented to the participants. As the participants were English or
German, the Emotional Stroop task was presented in the
respective language of the participants. The words used were
translated from English to German and then back-translated
by a separate party using structured guidelines (Brislin,
1970; Geisinger, 1994).
Participants were given 10 practice trials. In each trial, a
fixation cross appeared for 500 ms in the center of the screen.
Participants were asked to ignore the word and press a key
assigned to a specific color (red, green, blue, or yellow).
They were instructed to keep their fingers rested on the key
to allow for faster RTs. Measures produced by the task show
RT for a correct response. RT outliers were dealt with using
an upper cut-off of two standard deviations above the mean
(Mansell et al., 1999; Mogg et al., 1995) and a lower cut-off
of 250 ms (Ratcliff, 1993). Bias scores are calculated by sub-
tracting the mean RT (MRT) to neutral word presentations
from each of the MRT to stimulus words (aggression, posi-
tive, negative, and color), producing four bias scores for each
participant (Smith & Waterman, 2003). Higher semantic
interference on emotional or color trials is reflected by higher
RTs in these conditions compared with the neutral condition.
Hence, higher bias scores indicate a higher amount of inter-
ference on color naming caused by the processing of the
semantic meaning of the stimulus word.
Procedure
Participants accessed a website (hosted on www.millisecond.
com), which outlined information regarding the experiment
and issued a consent form. If accepted, the Inquisit web soft-
ware (“Inquisit 4.0.5.0.,” 2014) was downloaded and screen
resolution was automatically set to 800 × 600. Before testing
began, participants were informed that the test would take
approximately 40 min and should be completed in a quiet
setting. The order of the tasks was (a) Dot Probe (50 ms), (b)
Emotional Stroop, and (c) Dot Probe (200 ms). It was con-
stant across all participants. After the tasks were finished,
participants were directed to a website (hosted on www.sos-
cisurvey.de), which recorded demographic information and
any experience on a police force or martial arts group. The
STAI was then completed and participants were thanked for
their time and presented with debrief information.
Analytic Strategy
Normality of the data sets were checked using Shapiro–
Wilk’s test (Razali & Wah, 2011; Shapiro & Wilk, 1965)
and a visual inspection of histograms, normal Q-Q plots,
and box plots (Doane & Seward, 2011). Results showed
that the STAI scores were sufficiently normally distrib-
uted, allowing for parametric analysis. Scores from the
Dot Probe and the Emotional Stroop Task were not nor-
mally distributed. After transformation procedures, the
data sets were still not normally distributed. Hence, robust
statistical analysis based on ranked data was performed on
these data sets (Wilcox, 2012). Differences between
groups on STAI scores was assessed using separate one-
way ANOVAs. Significant results were followed up using
Bonferroni-corrected post hoc comparisons. Mean RTs of
the Dot Probe Task were subjected to a 4 × 2 mixed
ANOVA (group vs. location of the probe) on 20% trimmed
means with repeated measures on the second factor using
the bwtrim-function, implemented in R (A. Field, Miles,
& Field, 2012; Wilcox, 2012). Group was the between-
subjects factor, whereas the location of the probe (congru-
ent trial, incongruent trial) was accounted for as a repeated
within-subjects factor. Threat bias scores were calculated
as mean RT for targets in neutral word locations (incon-
gruent trial, IT) minus mean RT for targets in threat word
locations (congruent trial, CT) to simplify presentation.
Mean RTs of the Emotional Stroop Task were entered into
a 4 × 2 mixed ANOVA (group vs. theme) on 20% trimmed
means with repeated measures on the second factor.
Results were computed using the bwtrim-function, imple-
mented in R (A. Field et al., 2012; Wilcox, 2012). Group
was the between-subjects factor, comprising of four lev-
els. The second factor was the repeated measures, com-
prising of the RT of neutral words versus mean RT of the
emotionally themed word under investigation. Four sepa-
rate ANOVAs, one for each word class (aggression-
themed, color-themed, negative-themed, positive-themed),
were computed. Bias scores were calculated as mean RT
for emotionally labeled words minus mean RT for neu-
trally labeled words to simplify presentation. Statistical
analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics ver-
sion 24.0 and R for Mac OS X Version 3.1.1. A signifi-
cance level of p < .05 was set.
Results
State-Trait Anxiety Inventory
Participant scores for both state and trait anxiety scores of
the STAI are displayed in Table 2.
Results of separate one-way ANOVAs on STAI scores
revealed a significant effect of group on state anxiety,
F(3,204) = 7.88, p < .001, η2 = .105, and on trait anxiety,
F(3,204) = 11.00, p < .001, η2 = .141. Bonferroni-corrected
post hoc comparisons showed that all of the police and mar-
tial arts groups had significantly lower scores on state anxi-
ety than the control group, p = .006. The police group without
martial arts experience reported significantly less state

6 SAGE Open
anxiety than the control group, p < .001, and the martial arts
group, p = .016. For trait anxiety, the control group had sig-
nificantly higher scores than the police and martial arts
group, p < .001; the police group, p < .001; and the martial
arts group, p < .001. Means and 95% confidence intervals
around the STAI scores across all groups are depicted in
Figure 1. Due to variations between groups, state and trait
anxiety scores will not be treated as covariates in subsequent
analysis (A. Field, 2013; Lord, 1967, 1969; Miller &
Chapman, 2001; Wildt & Ahtola, 1978).
Dot Probe Task
Summary data, including means, standard deviations, and
95% confidence intervals, for Dot Probe Tasks across all
groups are shown in Table 3.
Results of the robust 4 × 2 mixed ANOVA (on 20%
trimmed means) yielded the following results: At 50 ms
exposure time, there was no significant main effect of group
on RT, Q = 0.45, p = .716; no significant main effect of loca-
tion of the probe, Q = 0.33, p = .569; and no significant
interaction effect (group × target location of the probe) on
RT, Q = 1.86, p = .141. At 200 ms exposure times, RT per-
formance yielded no significant main effect of group, Q =
0.99, p = .400; no significant main effect of the target loca-
tion of the probe, Q = 0.37, p = .546; and no significant
interaction effect between group and the target location of
the probe, Q = 0.93, p = .430.
Emotional Stroop Task
Participants’ scores of the Emotional Stroop Task across the
different groups are shown in Table 4.
Results of the robust 4 × 2 mixed ANOVA (on 20%
trimmed means) showed that for aggression-themed words,
mean RTs were not significantly affected by the group, Q =
0.41, p = .746; by the difference between the emotional
value of the words, Q = 0.02, p = .885; or by the interaction
between group status and emotional value of the words, Q
= 0.95, p = .421. For color words, results showed no signifi-
cant main effect for group status, Q = 0.85, p = .469; no
significant main effect for the emotional value of the words,
Q = 1.87, p = .174; and no significant Group × Emotional
value interaction effect, Q = 0.07, p = .975 on RT. For
words with negative value, results yielded no significant
main effect for group status, Q = 0.70, p = .556; no signifi-
cant main effect for the emotional value of the words, Q =
0.00, p = .966; and no significant interaction effect (Group
× Emotional value), Q = 0.58, p = .629 on RT. For positive
words, RTs were not significantly affected by group status,
Q = 0.62, p = .597; by the emotional value of the words, Q
= 2.73, p = .100; or by the interaction between group status
and the emotional value of negative words compared with
neutral ones, Q = 0.61, p = .61
Discussion
This study investigated the effects of job-related threat
exposure on threat-related attentional bias. Specifically, it
investigated whether regular exposure to real threats,
which is typical of police officers, or regular exposure to
threats in training settings leads to the development of
threat-related attentional bias. The study demonstrated
two main results: First, neither police officers nor martial
arts practitioners showed a threat-related attentional bias
Figure 1. Means and 95% confidence intervals of state and trait
anxiety scores across all groups.
Note. CI = confidence interval.
Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and 95% Confidence
Intervals for State and Trait Anxiety Scores.
M SD
95% CI
LL UL
State anxiety
Police 41.09 4.86 39.97 42.22
Martial arts 43.76 0.64 42.48 45.04
Police and martial arts 41.21 4.99 39.44 42.98
Control 44.85 4.82 43.45 46.26
Trait anxiety
Police 43.64 4.37 42.62 44.65
Martial arts 43.78 4.77 42.43 45.13
Police and martial arts 42.42 3.79 41.08 43.77
Control 47.52 4.71 46.15 48.89
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; UL = upper limit.

7
Table 3. Summary Data of 50 and 200 ms Dot Probe Task Scores.
78
Mean RT-IT Mean RT-CT Dot Probe bias score
M SD
95% CI
Mdn LQ UQ M SD
95% CI
Mdn LQ UQ M SD
BCa 95% CI
LL UL LL UL LL UL
50 ms
Police 523.72 104.98 499.23 548.22 498.82 460.56 553.87 519.42 98.66 496.40 542.44 499.74 432.84 538.22 4.31 17.23 0.61 7.82
Martial arts 532.11 159.49 486.78 577.44 504.61 448.84 543.32 533.74 156.33 489.31 578.17 508.49 458.13 550.45 −1.63 22.55 −7.92 5.10
Police and martial arts 517.26 106.15 478.99 555.53 484.76 450.32 548.10 519.96 110.23 480.22 559.71 487.20 449.08 533.26 −2.70 38.10 −17.40 8.78
Control 526.99 147.94 484.04 569.95 478.79 439.28 557.16 525.45 153.28 480.94 569.96 484.13 441.03 549.01 1.54 31.42 −6.86 10.29
200 ms
Police 469.85 65.25 454.63 485.08 452.76 430.81 490.60 472.74 67.75 456.93 488.54 452.16 437.63 492.07 −2.88 17.96 −6.96 1.30
Martial arts 479.52 103.46 450.11 508.92 463.19 438.70 498.09 478.62 97.86 450.81 506.44 461.79 436.01 499.37 0.89 14.69 −2.83 4.52
Police and martial arts 471.84 83.53 441.72 501.95 448.06 427.83 490.96 471.28 67.86 446.81 495.75 447.31 432.00 495.25 0.56 25.93 −6.34 9.28
Control 497.59 97.58 469.26 525.93 466.54 436.04 528.14 493.99 89.18 468.09 519.88 467.60 438.11 534.58 3.60 20.60 −2.07 10.11
Note. BCa = bias corrected and accelerated; CT = congruent trail; CI = confidence interval; IT = incongruent trial; LL = lower limit; LQ = lower quartile; RT = reaction time; UL = upper limit; UQ = upper quartile.

8
Table 4. Summary Data of Emotional Stroop Task Scores.
Mean RT Emotional Stroop bias score
M SD
95% CI
Mdn LQ UQ M SD
95% CI
Mdn LQ UQ LL UL LL UL
Aggression-themed words
Police 731.95 157.65 695.43 695.43 703.71 617.82 809.00 −4.36 82.93 −23.58 14.85 −4.45 −65.41 49.51
Martial arts 719.34 142.32 678.89 678.89 694.67 607.99 839.60 −2.17 77.71 −24.26 19.91 5.49 −40.86 43.07
Police and martial arts 690.80 129.68 644.82 644.82 686.46 584.24 810.92 10.39 76.67 −16.79 37.58 −7.08 −38.17 60.09
Control 717.93 161.43 671.05 671.05 678.91 614.40 779.65 −7.04 71.69 −27.86 13.77 −0.63 −36.15 35.99
Color-themed words
Police 761.73 186.20 718.59 718.59 721.15 628.93 847.79 25.42 82.50 6.30 44.53 18.62 −31.05 67.08
Martial arts 716.26 150.89 673.38 673.38 691.10 593.30 823.45 −5.25 10.01 −36.23 25.73 7.23 55.40 48.37
Police and martial arts 696.22 125.77 651.62 651.62 688.00 603.19 772.00 15.81 79.94 −12.54 44.15 9.71 −30.33 62.95
Control 742.72 202.22 684.00 684.00 705.05 637.60 807.20 17.75 78.76 −5.12 40.62 10.96 −38.34 73.07
Negative-themed words
Police 733.67 159.84 696.64 696.64 711.65 604.49 822.05 −2.64 89.83 −23.45 18.17 −7.72 −52.63 42.22
Martial arts 702.26 130.88 665.06 665.06 699.70 593.32 772.15 −19.25 91.94 −45.38 6.88 −9.17 −69.78 38.99
Police and martial arts 679.89 115.44 638.96 638.96 686.05 580.33 764.12 −0.52 58.29 −21.19 20.15 7.33 −40.44 31.88
Control 743.74 217.02 680.72 680.72 694.20 623.80 840.47 18.77 102.22 −10.92 48.45 15.98 −23.10 66.57
Positive-themed Words
Police 711.45 133.40 680.54 680.54 691.97 610.68 786.23 −24.86 87.73 −45.19 −4.54 −27.06 −52.57 20.65
Martial arts 711.17 137.60 672.06 672.06 695.71 600.27 794.84 −10.34 95.67 −37.53 16.85 −3.75 −54.26 52.03
Police and martial arts 676.38 118.26 634.45 634.45 664.46 595.35 761.42 −4.03 65.33 −27.19 19.14 −16.74 −35.69 35.85
Control 723.39 209.77 662.47 662.47 668.98 594.85 769.21 −1.59 92.17 −28.35 25.18 −23.43 −41.23 47.92
Neutral-themed Words
Police 736.31 157.39 699.85 699.85 719.19 628.02 806.45 — — — —
Martial arts 721.51 168.30 673.68 673.68 675.44 597.74 799.26 — — — —
Police and martial arts 680.41 102.98 643.90 643.90 678.74 609.23 745.73 — — — —
Control 724.97 175.72 673.95 673.95 675.50 616.55 802.17 — — — —
Note. CI = confidence interval; LL = lower limit; LQ = lower quartile; RT = reaction time; UL = upper limit; UQ = upper quartile.

Staller et al. 9
as indicated by the Dot Probe Task at 50 and 200 ms expo-
sure times, respectively, and the Emotional Stroop Task.
Thus, Hypothesis 1 was refuted. Second, individuals who
deal with threats on a regular basis, either in real (police
officers) or in training settings (martial artists), showed
less trait anxiety than the control group, disconfirming
Hypothesis 2.
Threat-Related Attentional Bias in Police Officers
There are two main possible interpretations of failure to find
a threat-related attentional bias in this sample: Either regular
exposure to threat does not lead to any attentional bias or
regular exposure does lead to attentional bias, but this exper-
iment did not document the effect.
The findings contradict claims made by Öhman and col-
leagues (Öhman, 1996; Öhman & Mineka, 2001; Öhman
& Wiens, 2004), according to whom threat-related atten-
tional bias develops as a result of survival relevance and
that it is a conditioned response to decrease the likelihood
of harm that is caused by these threats. In line with this,
Bar-Haim and colleagues (2010) presented data of the
impact of war-related stress on RTs, gathered during ongo-
ing rocket attacks in the Dot Probe Task. Their results
clearly indicate that individuals who are exposed to severe
life-threatening risks manifest threat-related attentional
bias, specifically, a bias away rather than toward the threat
at exposure times of 1,000 ms. Likewise, Todd and col-
leagues (2015) showed (using an attentional blink task)
that combat veterans (who served in Afghanistan), both
with and without posttraumatic stress disorder, demon-
strated attentional bias toward combat-related words.
Again, this suggests that exposure to life-threatening situ-
ations facilitates the development of cognitive biases
toward threat. In the described cases (inhabitants of areas
that are regularly attacked by rockets and combat-experi-
enced soldiers), a threat-related attentional bias can be
considered to be functional.
In this study, the sample under investigation consisted of
police officers. Exposure to regular threats was assumed
due to the experience in routine activity as a police officer.
Even though studies have confirmed that police officers are
at risk of being victims of violence (Bochenek & Staller,
2014; Ellrich & Baier, 2014, 2016; Ellrich, Baier, &
Pfeiffer, 2010), experience as a police officer does not nec-
essarily account for experience with violent confrontations
and the associated competencies (Schmalzl, 2008). Hence,
officers in this study had a mean of 9.28 years of work
experience (7.35 years for the police officer and martial arts
group), which does not necessarily reflect the amount of
exposure to violent threats. With regard to martial artists, to
our knowledge, no studies have looked at the prevalence of
engagement in violent confrontations in this population. In
sum, a lack of regular exposure to life-threatening situa-
tions may serve as a possible explanation for the results.
Future research should seek to ascertain the exact level of
exposure to threat in the participants.
Furthermore, the simulation of violent situations as con-
ducted in police use of force training and martial arts classes
has not led to the development of threat-related attentional
bias either. This could be explained by (a) a lack of represen-
tativeness in the training settings and/or (b) the amount of
time that individuals have been exposed to such situations.
Various researchers and practitioners in the martial arts and
police use of force domains have pointed out that training for
real-world encounters has to be more representative (Norris
& Wollert, 2011; Renden, Nieuwenhuys, Savelsbergh, &
Oudejans, 2015; Staller & Zaiser, 2015), implying that cur-
rent practices are not representative enough to foster the
acquisition of skills that are needed for dealing with violent
encounters.
Furthermore, it may be possible that individuals did not
spend enough time in representative learning environments
that allow for the functional development of threat-related
attentional bias. This may be due to the low amount of prac-
tice activities within a given training setting or due to the low
number of occasions in which the individual participates. For
example, a recent study investigating self-defense systems in
Germany showed that martial arts schools advertising self-
defense practices do not regularly incorporate representative
training activities (Staller, Bertram, Althaus, Heil, &
Klemmer, 2016). In the context of policing, the amount of
practice, and exposure to simulated violent encounters, is
limited by agencies’ policies.
Another reason for the failure to observe threat-related
attentional bias in police officers may lie in the words
used in the Dot Probe Task and Emotional Stroop Task.
Threat-related words in the Dot Probe Task were taken
from MacLeod and colleagues (2007). The word set
included words such as “ panicky,” “confused,” embar-
rassed,” as well as words such as “assault,” “attack,” and
“strangled.” The latter ones are clearly more combat-
related than the former ones. The same is true for the
Emotional Stroop Task, which was used as described by
Smith and Waterman (2005): Aggression-themed words
included words such as “temper,” “guilt,” or “annoyed” as
well as more combat-related words such as “kick,”
“slash,” or “kill.” In terms of a functional development of
a threat-related attentional bias, it may be possible that the
words used were too unspecific in the context of violent
encounters. To foster optimal decision making, the learner
in any context has to be provided with the correct cues
(Maran & Glavin, 2003; Staller & Abraham, 2016). If the
development of threat-related attentional bias in police
officers is considered as functional, then “training” cues
are only valid as long as they reflect “real-world” ones
(i.e., cues that are present during a violent encounter).
Therefore, a functional threat-related attentional bias may
not be elicited because of the lack of representativeness in
the psychological tests used. This line of argument is

10 SAGE Open
supported by the results of Todd and colleagues (2015),
who used combat-related words and subsequently found a
threat-related attentional bias in combat-experienced per-
sonnel. This suggests that an individual’s experience in
potentially life-threatening environments creates threat-
related attentional bias.
At the bottomline, the results of this study indicate that
the groups did not show dysfunctional threat-related atten-
tional bias, and thus any symptoms of a disorder of the
defensive system (i.e., an anxiety disorder). Yet, they did not
show any functional threat-related attentional bias either,
calling for further research to examine the influence of (a)
training practices in police and martial arts training, (b)
exposure to real threats of police officers, and (c) optimiza-
tion of the Dot Probe and Emotional Stroop Task, to account
for more specific threats for violent encounters.
Differences in State and Trait Anxiety
Trait anxiety was significantly higher in the control group
than in all the other tested groups, which disproved
Hypothesis 2. A possible moderator of this effect could be
the training participants take part in. Martial arts training
has been shown to be capable of reducing anxiety in par-
ticipants (Fuller, 1988; Trulson, 1986). As police use of
force training also contains “hand-to-hand” combat tech-
niques, it may be possible that the perceived improvement
in self-protection skills may lead to reduced anxiety.
However, several studies investigating state and trait anxi-
ety of officers compared with adult normative samples
(Newman & LeeAnne Rucker-Reed, 2004; Storch &
Panzarella, 1996) showed no differences between the
groups. Hence, the findings from this study contradict
those from earlier works.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that Newman and LeeAnne
Rucker-Reed (2004) found a trait anxiety mean of 32.94 in
U.S. marshals, compared with a mean of 35.55 in the norms
for working males aged 19 to 39 (Spielberger et al., 1983),
whereas the mean trait anxiety of police officers in this
study was 43.64, compared with the control group with a
mean of 47.52. With these scores, the police officers are in
the upper 20% of the German norms for working males
aged 30 to 59. The scores of the control group in this study
reflect the upper 10% of the same normative sample. Taken
together, the groups in this study display much higher trait
anxiety than the normative sample, even if the police offi-
cers and martial artists demonstrate significantly lower
scores than the control group of this study. A possible
explanation for the difference between police officers (and
martial artists) and the control group has been presented
above. The difference between the groups in this study and
the normative sample cannot be explained easily. As all
tests were administered the same way, and therefore, the
STAI was filled out after threat-related attentional bias and
risk-taking were measured, future studies should measure
STAI at the beginning of the test battery, to account for pos-
sible priming effects.
Limitations
There are several limitations that have to be acknowl-
edged. First, as various locations were used for testing, a
standardized environment could not be established. This
has been discussed as being a potential confound, espe-
cially when relating to measures of attention and RTs
(Birnbaum, 2004). Second, it may be possible that the
words used in the Dot Probe Task and the Emotional Stroop
Task do not account for functional threat-related atten-
tional bias in the context of violent confrontations. Future
studies should consider the use of combat-related words
(Todd et al., 2015) to capture possible effects. Third, the
actual exposure to real life-threatening situations of the
participants was not measured. Similarly, participants were
only asked about their years of experience in martial arts
training, which did not account for the kind of practices or
how often they engaged in it. Therefore, future research on
this topic should include data about the exposure to real-
life threats and the amount and the representativeness of
combat training (martial arts and police use of force train-
ing). Fourth, threat-related attentional measures in this
study measured cognitive biases toward and away from
threat. However, variability within each session was not
accounted for. As attentional bias variability is suggested
to be a useful marker of attentional impairment with regard
to posttraumatic stress disorder (Iacoviello et al., 2014),
future studies should incorporate threat-related attentional
bias variability (Naim et al., 2015; Zvielli et al., 2014).
Finally, as some of the participants completed the testing
battery at home via the Internet and given that the whole
session took about 40 min, there is the possibility of dis-
tractions during testing. Although participants were asked
to make sure that they will not get distracted, this cannot
be controlled for (Birnbaum, 2004).
Conclusion
Despite the limitations of this study, we provide evidence
that there are no differences between police officers, mar-
tial artists, and controls for threat-related attentional bias,
indicating no signs of a functional development of a cog-
nitive bias. However, in conjunction with previous
research on combat-related attentional bias, it may be pos-
sible that a possible functional attentional bias toward
combat-related cues was not detected. Furthermore, our
results showed lower trait anxiety in police officers and
martial artists than in the control group. This may account
for a lowering effect of police use of force and martial arts
training on anxiety.

Staller et al. 11
Appendix
Table A1. Words Used in the Dot Probe Task.
English German
Threat words Neutral words Threat words Neutral words
PANICKY CLARETS KOPFLOS ROTWEIN
DESPERATE VARIABLE VERWZEIFELT VARIABLE
CRINGING NECKLACE ZURÜCKSCHRECKE HALSKETTE
CAUTIOUS EDITIONS VORSICHTIG VERSION
SCARED PLANET ERSCHROCKEN PLANET
CANCER SADDLE KREBS SATTEL
DANGER EAGUE GEFAHR LIGA
ALARMED SHELVES ALAMIERT REGALE
CORONARY RECEIPTS INFARKT EINNAHMEN
TRAUMA ENJOIN TRAUMA BEFEHLEN
EDGY RINK GEREIZT EISBAHN
EMERGENCY LISTENING NOTFALL HÖREN
DISTRESS CREATURE BEDRÃÄNGNIS KREATUR
UNSETTLED ADVOCATED UNGEKLÄRT BEFÜRWORTEND
HOSTILE ROLLING FEINDLICH ROLLEN
CONFUSED ARRANGED VERWIRRT GEORDNET
TOUCHY TINTED EMPFINDLICH GETÖNT
FRIGHT SIPPED SCHRECKEN SCHLÜRFEND
WORRIED CONTEXT BESORGT KONTEXT
NAUSEA CONFER ÜBELKEIT VERLEIHEN
DISEASE REMARKS KRANKHEIT ANMERKUNGEN
WARY FOLD VORSICHTIG GEFALTET
SINISTER INTEGRAL UNHEIMLICH FALTE
MUTILATED DECANTING VERSTÜMMELT UMGEFÄLLT
NERVOUS OUTCOME NERVÖS ERGEBNIS
ASSAULT BOTTLES ÜBERFALL FLASCHEN
SUFFOCATING CONSTITUENT ERSTICKEN BESTANDTEIL
CATASTROPHE APPROXIMATE KATASTROPHE ANNÄHERND
LOST READ VERLOREN LESEN
HARM NOON SCHADEN MITTAG
TENSE BACKS SPANNUNG RÜCKSEITE
JUMPY LOTUS SCHRECKHAFT LOTUS
DEFENSIVE GEOMETRIC ABWEHR GEOMETRISCH
EMBARRASSED MICROSCOPIC PEINLICH MIKROSKOPISCH
LETHAL RACKET TÖDLICH TENNISSCHLÄGER
APPREHENSION INSTRUMENTAL FESTNAHME HILFREICH
AMBULANCE MOMENTARY KRANKENWAGEN VORÜBERGEHEND
ATTACK SEASON ANGRIFF JAHRESZEIT
HORROR WAGONS HORROR WAGON
STRANGLED SIGNATURE ERWÜRGEN UNTERSCHRIFT
AGITATION FIREPLACE UNRUHE FEUERPLATZ
INSECURE FETCHING UNSICHER BEZAUBERND
INCURABLE RECLAIMED UNHEILBAR REGENERIERT
SUICIDE SUMMERS ELBSTMORD SOMMER
FUNERAL HUNTING BEERDIGUNG JAGD
GRIEVING HALLMARK TRAUERND KENNZEICHEN
TRAGEDY REQUEST TRAGÖDIE BITTE
(continued)

12 SAGE Open
English German
Threat words Neutral words Threat words Neutral words
WORTHLESS BATTERIES WERTLOS BATTERIEN
UNPOPULAR SHORELINE UNBELIEBT UFER
SAD PAT TRAURIG KLAPS
POINTLESS LUNCHROOM SINNLOS KANTINE
GLUM KITE BEDRÜCKT DRACHEN
REJECTED QUANTITY ABGELEHNT MENGE
POWERLESS MULTITUDE MACHTLOS VIELZAHL
SICKLY TOKENS KRÄNKLICH ZEICHEN
DEVASTATED STAGECOACH VERWÜSTET POSTKUTSCHE
INFERIOR SHEARING UNTERLEGEN SCHUR
FAIL EARS SCHEITERN OHREN
DEFEAT MUSEUM NIEDERLAGEN MUSEUM
LONELY JERSEY EINSAM TRIKOT
FATIGUE AVOCADO MÜDIGKEIT AVOKADO
IGNORED LIGHTED VERNACHLÄSSIGT ERLEUCHTET
SLUGGISH TEXTURED TRÃGE STRUKTURIERT
GROAN FLUTE STÖHNEN FLÖTE
MISERABLE STATEWIDE ELEND LANDESWEITE
BROODING PROTEINS GRÜBELEI PROTEINE
UNFORTUNATE COMMODITIES UNGLÜCKLICH ROHSTOFFE
DESPISED TOMATOES VERACHTET TOMATEN
PATHETIC CLEANERS ARMSELIG REINIGER
HUMILIATED WATERPROOF ERNIEDRIGT WASSERFEST
HAZARD BALLOT GEFAHR ABSTIMMUNG
INTIMIDATED COEFFICIENT EINGESCHÜCHTERT KOEFFIZIENT
QUAKING ANAGRAM ZITTERND ANAGRAM
TIMID SATIN ÄNGSTLICH SATIN
TEASE AISLE ÄRGERN GANG
DISMAL MIDWAY DÜSTER MITTEN
HOPELESS FEATHERS HOFFNUNGSLOS GEFIEDER
AWFUL TRACT SCHRECKLICH STRECKE
DESERTED MARCHING VERLASSEN MARSCHIEREND
FUTILE ATTIRE VERGEBLICH BEKLEIDUNG
MOURN SCANS TRAUERN SCAN
DISCOURAGED CONNECTIONS ENTMUTIGT VERBINDUNGEN
INADEQUATE TRANSITION UNZUREICHEND ÜBERGANG
DISCONTENTED HOUSEHOLDERS UNZUFRIEDEN HAUSHERR
INFORM DEPOTS BELEHREN LAGERHAUS
MISUNDERSTOOD MANIFESTATION VERKANNT ERSCHEINUNG
GLOOMY PASTEL DÜSTER PASTELL
USELESS FLOWING NUTZLOS FLÜSSIG
FORLORN KEYHOLE VERLOREN SCHLÜSSELLOCH
TORMENTED MYTHOLOGY GEFOLTERT MYTHOLOGIE
DEATHBED SOFTENER STERBEBETT WEICHMACHER
UNHAPPY BRIDGES UNGLÜCKLICH BRÜCKEN
DULL FLEW STUMPF FLIEGEN
DREADFUL COMPUTER FURCHTBAR COMPUTER
COFFIN EDITED SARG BEARBEITET
MISTAKE QUARTER FEHLER VIERTEL
Table A1. (continued)

Staller et al. 13
Table A2. Words Used in the Emotional Stroop Task.
Aggression-themed words Positive emotion words Negative emotion words Neutral words Color words
English German English German English German English German English German
rage Wut devotion Hingabe” abandoned verlassen door Tür purple lila
anger Zorn affection Zuneigung abused missbraucht group Gruppe gray grau
tear zerreißen admire bewundern afraid ängstlich chair Stuhl flesh fleischfarben
assault Angriff euphoric euphorisch aggressive aggressiv telephone Telefon pink pink
kick Tritt fond zärtlich agony Qual dog Hund orange orange
shout Schrei grateful dankbar angry wütend coat Mantel scarlet scharlachrot
punch Schlag tolerant tolerant arrogant arrogant sofa Sofa maroon kastanienbraun
hate Hass affectionate herzlich bad schlecht bag Tasche crimson purpurrot
argue streiten amused amüsiert bitchy gehässig diary Tagebuch white weiß
temper Wut love Liebe crazy verrückt newspaper Zeitung lack schwar
fight Kampf joy Freude cruelty Grausamkeit eat essen cyan cyanblau
kill töten proud stolz detest verabscheuen oven Ofen brown braun
punish bestrafen fond liebevoll envy Neid floor Boden tin zinnfarben
annoyed verärgert funny lustig fear Angst shopping einkaufen bronze bronze
guilt Schuld glad froh frightened erschrocken umbrella Regenschirm mauve malvenfarben
lust Verlangen comfortable komfortabel fury Zorn windy windig gold golden
crush vernichten beloved geliebte glum bedrückt radio Radio silver silbern
slash Hieb calm Ruhe greed Gier painting Gemälde jade jadegrün
rape Vergewaltigung peace Frieden hateful abscheulich milk Milch topaz topazfarben
cut Schnitt daring Kühnheit spiteful boshaft school Schule emerald smaragdgrün
wound Wunde cheerful heiter suspicious verdächtig ball Ball purple lila
injure verletzen warm warm rage böse pencil Bleistift gray grau
threaten bedrohen protective schätzend pain Schmerz cigarette Zigarette flesh fleischfarben
knife Messer hope Hoffnung lose verlieren football Fußball pink pink
slap Ohrfeige lively lebhaft misery Elend shoe Schuh orange” orange
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Adolphs, R. (2013). The biology of fear. Current Biology, 23, R79-
R93. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.11.055
Amir, N., Elias, J., Klumpp, H., & Przeworski, A. (2003).
Attentional bias to threat in social phobia: Facilitated process-
ing of threat or difficulty disengaging attention from threat?
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 41, 1325-1335.
Amir, N., McNally, R. J., Riemann, B. C., Burns, J., Lorenz, M.,
& Mullen, J. T. (1996). Suppression of the emotional Stroop
effect by increased anxiety in patients with social phobia.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 34, 945-948.
Bar-Haim, Y., Holoshitz, Y., Eldar, S., Frenkel, T. I., Muller, D.,
Charney, D. S., . . . Wald, I. (2010). Life-threatening danger
and suppression of attention bias to threat. The American
Journal of Psychiatry, 167, 694-698. doi:10.1176/appi.
ajp.2009.09070956
Bar-Haim, Y., Lamy, D., Pergamin, L., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.
J., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (2007). Threat-related attentional
bias in anxious and nonanxious individuals: A meta-analytic
study. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 1-24. doi:10.1037/0033-
2909.133.1.1
Beck, A. T., & Clark, D. A. (1997). An information process-
ing model of anxiety: Automatic and strategic processes.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 35, 49-58.
Birnbaum, M. H. (2004). Human research and data collection
via the Internet. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 803-832.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141601
Bishop, S. J. (2008a). Neural mechanisms underlying selec-
tive attention to threat. Annals of the New York Academy of
Sciences, 1129, 141-152. doi:10.1196/annals.1417.016
Bishop, S. J. (2008b). Trait anxiety and impoverished prefron-
tal control of attention. Nature Neuroscience, 12, 92-98.
doi:10.1038/nn.2242
Bishop, S. J., Duncan, J., Brett, M., & Lawrence, A. D. (2004).
Prefrontal cortical function and anxiety: Controlling attention
to threat-related stimuli. Nature Neuroscience, 7, 184-188.
doi:10.1038/nn1173
Blanchette, I., & Richards, A. (2010). The influence of affect on
higher level cognition: A review of research on interpreta-
tion, judgement, decision making and reasoning. Cognition &
Emotion, 24, 561-595. doi:10.1080/02699930903132496
Bochenek, A., & Staller, M. S. (2014). Gewalt gegen
Polizeibeamte—Zum Bedarf eines Kompetenzmodells zur
Abwehr von gewalttätigen Angriffen [Violence against police
officers—In need of a comptence model for dealing with

14 SAGE Open
physical violence]. In S. Liebl & P. Kuhn (Eds.), Menschen im
Zweikampf—Kampfkunst und Kampfsport in Forschung und
Lehre 2013. 3. Symposium der dvs-Kommission „Kampfkunst
und Kampfsport” vom 7.-9. November 2013 in Erlangen (pp.
224-229). Hamburg, Germany: Czwalina.
Brislin, R. W. (1970). Back-translation for cross-cultural
research. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1, 185-216.
doi:10.1177/135910457000100301
Byrne, A., & Eysenck, M. W. (1995). Trait anxiety, anxious
mood, and threat detection. Cognition & Emotion, 9, 549-562.
doi:10.1080/02699939508408982
Cisler, J. M., & Koster, E. H. W. (2010). Mechanisms of atten-
tional biases towards threat in anxiety disorders: An inte-
grative review. Clinical Psychology Review, 30, 203-216.
doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2009.11.003
Cisler, J. M., & Olatunji, B. O. (2010). Components of attentional
biases in contamination fear: Evidence for difficulty in dis-
engagement. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 48, 74-78.
doi:10.1016/j.brat.2009.09.003
College of Policing. (2013, April 14). Police use of force. Retrieved
from https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/public-
order/core-principles-and-legislation/police-use-of-force/
Constans, J. I., McCloskey, M. S., Vasterling, J. J., Brailey, K.,
& Mathews, A. (2004). Suppression of attentional bias in
PTSD. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 113, 315-323.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.113.2.315
Das, P., Kemp, A. H., Liddell, B. J., Brown, K. J., Olivieri, G.,
Peduto, A., . . . Williams, L. M. (2005). Pathways for fear per-
ception: Modulation of amygdala activity by thalamo-cortical
systems. NeuroImage, 26, 141-148. doi:10.1016/j.neuroim-
age.2005.01.049
Davis, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001). The amygdala: Vigilance and
emotion. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13-34. Retrieved from
http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=
pubmed&id=11244481&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks
De Clercq, A., Crombez, G., Buysse, A., & Roeyers, H. (2003).
A simple and sensitive method to measure timing accuracy.
Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35,
109-115.
Di Lollo, V., Enns, J. T., & Rensick, R. A. (2000). Competition for
consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reen-
trant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
General, 129, 481-507. doi:10.1037//0096-3445.129.4.481
Doane, D. P., & Seward, L. E. (2011). Measuring skewness: A for-
gotten statistic? Journal of Statistics Education, 19(2), 1-18.
Ehlers, A., & Clark, D. M. (2000). A cognitive model of posttrau-
matic stress disorder. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38,
319-345. doi:10.1016/S0005-7967(99)00123-0
Ellrich, K. (2016). Burnout and violent victimization in police offi-
cers: A dual process model. Policing: An International Journal
of Police Strategies & Management, 39, 652-666.
Ellrich, K., & Baier, D. (2014). Gewalt gegen niedersäch-
sische Beamteinnen und Beamte aus dem Einsatz und
Streifendienst: Zum Einfluss von personen-, arbeits- und
situationsbezogenen Merkmalden auf das Gewaltopferrisiko
[Violence against North-Rhine-Westphalian police officers:
The influence of personal, work-related and situational
characteristics on the risk of victimization] (No. 123).
Hannover, Germany: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut
Niedersachsen e.V.
Ellrich, K., & Baier, D. (2016). The influence of personal-
ity on violent victimization—A study on police officers.
Psychology, Crime & Law, 22, 538-560. doi:10.1080/10683
16X.2016.1168424
Ellrich, K., Baier, D., & Pfeiffer, C. (2010). Gewalt gegen
Polizeibeamte: Ausgewählte Befunde zu den Tätern der Gewalt
[Violence against police officers: Selected results regard-
ing the perpetrators]. Hannover, Germany: Kriminologisches
Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen e.V.
Endsley, M. R. (1995). Measurement of situation awareness in dynamic
systems: Situation awareness. Human Factors, 37, 65-84.
Endsley, M. R., & Robertson, M. M. (2000). Training for situation
awareness. In M. R. Endsley & D. J. Garland (Eds.), Situation
awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 349-365). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Evans, B. J., Coman, G. J., & Stanley, R. O. (1992). The police per-
sonality: Type A behavior and trait anxiety. Journal of Criminal
Justice, 20, 429-441. doi:10.1016/0047-2352(92)90078-N
Eysenck, H. J. (1992). Psychobiology of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 752-753.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(92)90247-M
Eysenck, M. W. (1992). Anxiety: The cognitive perspective. Hove,
UK: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eysenck, M. W. (1997). Anxiety and cognition: A unified theory.
Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
Eysenck, M. W., Derakshan, N., Santos, R., & Calvo, M. G. (2007).
Anxiety and cognitive performance: Attentional control theory.
Emotion, 7, 336-353. doi:10.1037/1528-3542.7.2.336
Eysenck, M. W., Payne, S., & Derakshan, N. (2005). Trait anxi-
ety, visuospatial processing, and working memory. Cognition
& Emotion, 19, 1214-1228. doi:10.1080/02699930500260245
Field, A. (2013). Discovering statistics using IBM SPSS statistics
(4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using
R. London, England: Sage.
Field, M., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Eye movements
to smoking-related cues: Effects of nicotine deprivation.
Psychopharmacology, 173, 116-123. doi:10.1007/s00213-003-
1689-2
Field, M., Mogg, K., Zetteler, J., & Bradley, B. P. (2004). Attentional
biases for alcohol cues in heavy and light social drinkers: The roles
of initial orienting and maintained attention. Psychopharmacology,
176, 88-93. doi:10.1007/s00213-004-1855-1
Fox, E., Russo, R., Bowles, R., & Dutton, K. (2001). Do threaten-
ing stimuli draw or hold visual attention in subclinical anxiety?
Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 681-700.
doi:10.1037//0096-3445.130.4.681
Fox, E., Russo, R., & Dutton, K. (2002). Attentional bias
for threat: Evidence for delayed disengagement from
emotional faces. Cognition & Emotion, 16, 355-379.
doi:10.1080/02699930143000527
Fuller, J. R. (1988). Martial arts and psychological health.
British Journal of Medical Psychology, 61, 317-328.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8341.1988.tb02794.x
Füllgrabe, U. (2014). Psychologie der Eigensicherung [Psychology
of safety in policing]. Stuttgart, Germany: Boorberg.
Garner, M., Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (2006). Orienting and main-
tenance of gaze to facial expressions in social anxiety. Journal
of Abnormal Psychology, 115, 760-770. doi:10.1037/0021-
843X.115.4.760

Staller et al. 15
Geisinger, K. F. (1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment:
Translation and adaptation issues influencing the norma-
tive interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological
Assessment, 6, 304-312. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304
Gilboa-Schechtman, E., Foa, E. B., & Amir, N. (1999). Attentional
biases for facial expressions in social phobia: The face-in-
the-crowd paradigm. Cognition & Emotion, 13, 305-318.
doi:10.1080/026999399379294
Grös, D. F., Antony, M. M., Simms, L. J., & McCabe, R. E.
(2007). Psychometric properties of the State-Trait Inventory
for Cognitive and Somatic Anxiety (STICSA): Comparison
to the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). Psychological
Assessment, 19, 369-381. doi:10.1037/1040-3590.19.4.369
Gur, R. C., Schroeder, L., Turner, T., McGrath, C., Chan, R. M.,
Turetsky, B. I., . . . Gur, R. E. (2002). Brain activation dur-
ing facial emotion processing. NeuroImage, 16, 651-662.
doi:10.1006/nimg.2002.1097
Hariri, A. R., Bookheimer, S. Y., & Mazziotta, J. C. (2000).
Modulating emotional responses. NeuroReport, 11, 43-48.
doi:10.1097/00001756-200001170-00009
Helfinstein, S. M., White, L. K., Bar-Haim, Y., & Fox, N. A. (2008).
Affective primes suppress attention bias to threat in socially
anxious individuals. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 46,
799-810. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.03.011
Iacoviello, B. M., Wu, G., Abend, R., Murrough, J. W., Feder, A.,
Fruchter, E., . . . Charney, D. S. (2014). Attention bias variabil-
ity and symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder. Journal of
Traumatic Stress, 27, 232-239. doi:10.1002/jts.21899
Inquisit 4.0.5.0. (2014). Inquisit 4.0.5.0. Seattle, WA: Millisecond
Software.
Klein, G. A. (2000). Analysis of situation awareness from criti-
cal incident reports. In M. R. Endsley & D. J. Garland (Eds.),
Situation awareness analysis and measurement (pp. 51-72).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Van Damme, S., Verschuere, B., &
De Houwer, J. (2005). Signals for threat modulate attentional
capture and holding: Fear-conditioning and extinction during
the exogenous cueing task. Cognition & Emotion, 19, 771-780.
doi:10.1080/02699930441000418
Koster, E. H. W., Crombez, G., Verschuere, B., & De Houwer, J.
(2004). Selective attention to threat in the dot probe para-
digm: Differentiating vigilance and difficulty to disengage.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 42, 1183-1192. doi:10.1016/j.
brat.2003.08.001
Koster, E. H. W., Verschuere, B., Crombez, G., & Van Damme,
S. (2005). Time-course of attention for threatening pictures in
high and low trait anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy,
43, 1087-1098. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2004.08.004
Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis
of present-day American-English. Providence, RI: Brown
University Press.
LaBerge, D. (1995). Attentional processing. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press. doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674183940
Laux, L., Glanzmann, P., Schaffner, P., & Spielberger, C. D.
(1981). Das State-Trait-Angstinventar (STAI) [The State–Trait
Anxiety Inventory]. Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
Liddell, B. J., Brown, K. J., Kemp, A. H., Barton, M. J., Das, P., Peduto,
A., . . . Williams, L. M. (2005). A direct brainstem-amygdala-cor-
tical “alarm” system for subliminal signals of fear. NeuroImage,
24, 235-243. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2004.08.016
Lord, F. M. (1967). A paradox in the interpretation of group com-
parisons. Psychological Bulletin, 68, 304-305. doi:10.1037/
h0025105
Lord, F. M. (1969). Statistical adjustments when comparing
preexisting groups. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 336-337.
doi:10.1037/h0028108
MacLeod, C., Mathews, A., & Tata, P. (1986). Attentional bias in
emotional disorders. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 95, 15-
20. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.95.1.15
MacLeod, C., Rutherford, E., Campbell, L., Ebsworthy, G., &
Holker, L. (2002). Selective attention and emotional vulner-
ability: Assessing the causal basis of their association through
the experimental manipulation of attentional bias. Journal of
Abnormal Psychology, 111, 107-123.
MacLeod, C., Soong, L. Y., Rutherford, E. M., & Campbell, L. W.
(2007). Internet-delivered assessment and manipulation of anx-
iety-linked attentional bias: Validation of a free-access atten-
tional probe software package. Behavior Research Methods,
39, 533-538.
Mansell, W., Clark, D. M., Ehlers, A., & Chen, Y.-P. (1999). Social
anxiety and attention away from emotional faces. Cognition &
Emotion, 13, 673-690. doi:10.1080/026999399379032
Maran, N. J., & Glavin, R. J. (2003). Low-to high-fidelity simula-
tion—A continuum of medical education? Medical Education,
37(Suppl. 1), 22-28.
Mathews, A., & Sebastian, S. (2008). Suppression of emotional
Stroop effects by fear-arousal. Cognition & Emotion, 7, 517-
530. doi:10.1080/02699939308409203
Miller, G. A., & Chapman, J. P. (2001). Misunderstanding analysis
of covariance. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 110, 40-48.
doi:10.1037/0021-843X.110.1.40
Miltner, W. H. R., Krieschel, S., Hecht, H., Trippe, R., & Weiss, T.
(2004). Eye movements and behavioral responses to threatening
and nonthreatening stimuli during Visual search in phobic and
nonphobic subjects. Emotion, 4, 323-339. doi:10.1037/1528-
3542.4.4.323
Mogg, K., & Bradley, B. P. (1998). A cognitive-motivational analy-
sis of anxiety. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36, 809-848.
Retrieved from http://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.
fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=9701859&retmode=ref&cmd=prlinks
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., Miles, F., & Dixon, R. (2004). Time
course of attentional bias for threat scenes: Testing the vigi-
lance-avoidance hypothesis. Cognition & Emotion, 18, 689-
700. doi:10.1080/02699930341000158
Mogg, K., Bradley, B. P., & Williams, R. (1995). Attentional
bias in anxiety and depression: The role of awareness.
The British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 34, 17-36.
doi:10.1111/j.2044-8260.1995.tb01434.x
Mogg, K., Holmes, A., Garner, M., & Bradley, B. P. (2008). Effects
of threat cues on attentional shifting, disengagement and
response slowing in anxious individuals. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 46, 656-667. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2008.02.011
Morris, J. S., Frith, C. D., Perrett, D. I., Rowland, D., Young, A.
W., Calder, A. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1996). A differential neural
response in the human amygdala to fearful and happy facial
expressions. Nature, 383, 812-815. doi:10.1038/383812a0
Naim, R., Abend, R., Wald, I., Eldar, S., Levi, O., Fruchter, E., . .
. Bar-Haim, Y. (2015). Threat-related attention bias variability
and posttraumatic stress. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
172, 1242-1250. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.14121579

16 SAGE Open
Newman, D. W., & LeeAnne Rucker-Reed, M. (2004). Police
stress, state-trait anxiety, and stressors among U.S. Marshals.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 631-641. doi:10.1016/j.jcrim-
jus.2004.08.003
Norris, W. A., & Wollert, T. N. (2011). Stress and decision making.
Glynco, GA: Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers.
Öhman, A. (1996). Preattentive control of attention to emotional
stimuli (PsycEXTRA Dataset). doi:10.1037/e526132012-014
Öhman, A., & Mineka, S. (2001). Fears, phobias, and pre-
paredness: Toward an evolved module of fear and
fear learning. Psychological Review, 108, 483-522.
doi:10.1037//0033-295X.108.3.483
Öhman, A., & Wiens, S. (2004). The concept of an evolved fear
module and cognitive theories of anxiety. In A. S. R. Manstead,
N. Frijda, & A. Fischer (Eds.), Feelings and Emotions (pp. 58-
80). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/
CBO9780511806582.005
Pessoa, L., & Adolphs, R. (2010). Emotion processing and the
amygdala: From a “low road” to “many roads” of evaluating
biological significance. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11,
773-783. doi:10.1038/nrn2920
Phillips, M. L., Young, A. W., Scott, S. K., Calder, A. J., Andrew,
C., Giampietro, V., . . . Gray, J. A. (1998). Neural responses to
facial and vocal expressions of fear and disgust. Proceedings
of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 265, 1809-1817.
doi:10.1098/rspb.1998.0506
Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.
Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510-532.
Razali, N. M., & Wah, Y. B. (2011). Power comparisons of Shapiro-
Wilk, Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Lilliefors and Anderson-Darling
tests. Journal of Statistical Modeling and Analytics, 2, 21-33.
Renden, P. G., Nieuwenhuys, A., Savelsbergh, G. J. P., & Oudejans, R.
R. D. (2015). Dutch police officers’ preparation and performance
of their arrest and self-defence skills: A questionnaire study.
Applied Ergonomics, 49, 8-17. doi:10.1016/j.apergo.2015.01.002
Rinck, M., Becker, E. S., Kellermann, J., & Roth, W. T. (2003).
Selective attention in anxiety: Distraction and enhancement in
visual search. Depression and Anxiety, 18, 18-28. doi:10.1002/
da.10105
Rinck, M., Reinecke, A., Ellwart, T., Heuer, K., & Becker, E. S.
(2005). Speeded detection and increased distraction in fear of
spiders: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 114, 235-248. doi:10.1037/0021-843X.114.2.235
Salemink, E., van den Hout, M. A., & Kindt, M. (2007). Selective
attention and threat: Quick orienting versus slow disengagement
and two versions of the dot probe task. Behaviour Research
and Therapy, 45, 607-615. doi:10.1016/j.brat.2006.04.004
Saus, E. R., Johnsen, B. H., Eid, J., Riisem, P. K., Andersen, R., &
Thayer, J. F. (2006). The effect of brief situational awareness
training in a police shooting simulator: An experimental study.
Military Psychology, 18(Suppl.), S3-S21. Retrieved from http://
www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1207/s15327876mp1801s_2
Schmalzl, H. P. (2008). Einsatzkompetenz [Competence on duty].
Frankfurt, Germany: Verlag Für Polizeiwissenschaft.
Shapiro, S. S., & Wilk, M. B. (1965). An analysis of variance test
for normality (complete samples). Biometrika, 52, 591-611.
doi:10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591
Shechner, T., Britton, J. C., Pérez Edgar, K., Bar-Haim, Y., Ernst,
M., Fox, N. A., . . . Pine, D. S. (2012). Attention biases, anxiety,
and development: Toward or away from threats or rewards?
Depression and Anxiety, 29, 282-294. doi:10.1002/da.20914
Sheppes, G., Luria, R., Fukuda, K., & Gross, J. J. (2013). There’s
more to anxiety than meets the eye: Isolating threat-related
attentional engagement and disengagement biases. Emotion,
13, 520-528. doi:10.1037/a0031236
Sipos, M. L., Bar-Haim, Y., Abend, R., Adler, A. B., & Bliese, P.
D. (2014). Postdeployment threat-related attention bias inter-
acts with combat exposure to account for PTSD and anxiety
symptoms in soldiers. Depression and Anxiety, 31, 124-129.
doi:10.1002/da.22157
Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2003). Processing bias for aggres-
sion words in forensic and nonforensic samples. Cognition &
Emotion, 17, 681-701. doi:10.1080/02699930244000192
Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2005). Sex differences in processing
aggression words using the Emotional Stroop task. Aggressive
Behavior, 31, 271-282. doi:10.1002/ab.20071
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., & Lushene, R. E. (1970). STAI.
Manual for the State-trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA:
Consulting Psychologists Press.
Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R. E., Vagg, P., &
Jacobs, G. A. (1983). STAI. Manual for the State-trait Anxiety
Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Staller, M. S., & Abraham, A. (2016). “Work on your problem-
solving”: Krav Maga experts’ views on optimal learning envi-
ronments for self-defence training. International Journal of
Coaching Science, 10, 91-113.
Staller, M. S., Bertram, O., Althaus, P., Heil, V., & Klemmer,
I. (2016). Selbstverteidigung in Deutschland—Eine
empirische Studie zu trainingsdidaktischen Aspekten von 103
Selbstverteidigungssystemen [Self-defence in Germany—A
empirical study of pedagogical aspects in 103 self-defence sys-
tems]. In M. J. Meyer (Ed.), Martial arts studies in Germany—
Defining and crossing disciplinary boundaries (pp. 51-56).
Hamburg, Germany: Czwalina.
Staller, M. S., & Zaiser, B. (2015). Developing problem solvers:
New perspectives on pedagogical practices in police use of
force training. The Journal of Law Enforcement, 4(3), 1-15.
Stein, D. J., & Nesse, R. M. (2011). Threat detection, precau-
tionary responses, and anxiety disorders. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 35, 1075-1079. doi:10.1016/j.neubio-
rev.2010.11.012
Storch, J. E., & Panzarella, R. (1996). Police stress: State-trait
anxiety in relation to occupational and personal stressors.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 24, 99-107. doi:10.1016/0047-
2352(95)00058-5
Stormark, K. M., Field, N. P., Hugdahl, K., & Horowitz, M. (1997).
Selective processing of visual alcohol cues in abstinent alco-
holics: An approach-avoidance conflict? Addictive Behaviors,
22, 509-519.
Todd, R. M., MacDonald, M. J., Sedge, P., Robertson, A.,
Jetly, R., Taylor, M. J., & Pang, E. W. (2015). Soldiers
with posttraumatic stress disorder see a world full of threat:
Magnetoencephalography reveals enhanced tuning to combat-
related cues. Biological Psychiatry, 78, 821-829. doi:10.1016/j.
biopsych.2015.05.011
Trulson, M. E. (1986). Martial arts training: A novel “cure” for
juvenile delinquency. Human Relations, 39, 1131-1140.
doi:10.1177/001872678603901204

Staller et al. 17
Van Damme, S., Crombez, G., Hermans, D., Koster, E. H. W., &
Eccleston, C. (2006). The role of extinction and reinstate-
ment in attentional bias to threat: A conditioning approach.
Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44, 1555-1563. doi:10.1016/j.
brat.2005.11.008
Wald, I., Lubin, G., Holoshitz, Y., Muller, D., Fruchter, E., Pine, D. S., .
. . Bar-Haim, Y. (2011). Battlefield-like stress following simulated
combat and suppression of attention bias to threat. Psychological
Medicine, 41, 699-707. doi:10.1017/S0033291710002308
Wald, I., Shechner, T., Bitton, S., Holoshitz, Y., Charney, D. S.,
Muller, D., . . . Bar-Haim, Y. (2011). Attention bias away from
threat during life threatening danger predicts PTSD symptoms
at one-year follow-up. Depression and Anxiety, 28, 406-411.
doi:10.1002/da.20808
Wilcox, R. (2012). Introduction to robust estimation & hypothesis
testing. Waltham, MA: Elsevier.
Wildt, A., & Ahtola, O. (1978). Analysis of covariance. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781412983297
Williams, J. M. G., Mathews, A., & MacLeod, C. (1996). The
emotional Stroop task and psychopathology. Psychological
Bulletin, 120, 3-24. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.3
Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C., & Mathews, A.
(1997). Cognitive psychology and emotional disorders (2nd
ed.). Oxford, UK: John Wiley.
Williams, J. M. G., Williams, J. M. G., Watts, F. N., MacLeod, C.,
& Mathews, A. (1988). Cognitive psychology and emotional
disorders. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Williams, L. M., Phillips, M. L., Brammer, M. J., Skerrett, D.,
Lagopoulos, J., Rennie, C., . . . Gordon, E. (2001). Arousal dis-
sociates amygdala and hippocampal fear responses: Evidence
from simultaneous fMRI and skin conductance recording.
NeuroImage, 14, 1070-1079. doi:10.1006/nimg.2001.0904
Yiend, J. (2010). The effects of emotion on attention: A review of
attentional processing of emotional information. Cognition &
Emotion, 24, 3-47. doi:10.1080/02699930903205698
Yiend, J., & Mathews, A. (2001). Anxiety and attention to threatening
pictures. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Section A, 54, 665-681. doi:10.1080/02724980042000462
Zald, D. H. (2003). The human amygdala and the emotional evalu-
ation of sensory stimuli. Brain Research Reviews, 41, 88-123.
doi:10.1016/S0165-0173(02)00248-5
Zvielli, A., Bernstein, A., & Koster, E. H. W. (2014). Dynamics
of attentional bias to threat in anxious adults: Bias towards
and/or away? PLoS ONE, 9(8), e104025. doi:10.1371/journal.
pone.0104025
Author Biographies
Mario S. Staller is a German, police use of force, self-defense and
firearms coach. His research focuses on the psychology of conflict
situations and skill development and coach education in profes-
sional conflict management settings.
Benjamin Zaiser is a PhD student at the Unitersity of Liverpool.
His research interests include interpersonal communication, social
cognition during critical and major incidents, tactical decision mak-
ing in law enforcement contexts, and the pedagogy of correspond-
ing training and education.
Swen Körner is a professor and Head of the Institute of Pedagogy
and Philosophy at German Sports University Cologne. His research
interests lie in the area of pedagogy and social systems theory.
Jon C. Cole is a professor at the Universtiy of Liverpool. His main
areas of interests are conflict psychology, temporal psychology,
decision making, and prevention science.