This paper was originally presented at The Society for Police and Criminal Psychology Annual Convention in October, 1995. It stemmed from my interest in the thought patterns I have observed in officers who had been involved in a Critical Incident. I noted that many officers, after much discussion, would sheepishly reveal thoughts that they felt "didn't belong" to the situation. These thoughts were often tangential, irrelevant, and for want of a better term "silly". Of more interest to me was the prevelance of these thoughts in officers who were having difficulty getting over a critical incident. I found that venting and discussing these "silly" thoughts was often very helpfull in finding a proper place for the memory of the incident. Afterward many of the officers were quickly able to move on with their lives.
The traditional debriefing process has seven steps:
1) Introduction, 2) Fact phase, 3) Thoughts phase, 4) Reactions phase, 5) Symptoms phase, 6) Teaching phase, and 7) Re-entry phase.As a cognitive therapist this model dovetails nicely with my daily practice. The Fact, Thought, and Reaction phase mirrors Ellis's ABC's of rational emotive therapy. It has been noted that thoughts of responsibility, control (or lack there of), loss, and vulnerability often surround the emotional difficulties associated with a critical incident. During a debriefing process, these thoughts are evoked during the "thought" phase. If appropriate, given the unique characteristics of the client, these thought patterns are addressed during the teaching phase. It is hoped that by re-framing and or altering these thought patterns future emotional difficulties will be avoided.One of this authors observations while doing debriefings is that, in addition to the "standard" or "irrational" thoughts there will also be what I call the "silly" thought. Probing for the silly thought has become a standard part of the debriefing process in my practice.
What is a "silly thought"? This author defines a silly thought as one that stems from the critical incident but would be viewed by most people as either unimportant, tangential to, or just downright silly with regard to it's relationship to the critical incident. The silly thought as used here is not the irrational thought. Important irrational thoughts might include such self statements as: "It was my fault my partner got shot". "I should have stopped him from going into the house alone". "It was my fault since I encouraged him to transfer to that squad". Statements such as these may, depending upon circumstance, be irrational. They are certainly important to uncover in the debriefing process. They are not, however, silly thoughts as I am defining them.
I have found that the irrational thoughts that produce guilt, vulnerability, or surround loss are talked about and surface more readily than the "silly" thought. They are viewed as more acceptable views given the nature of the tragic event. Possibly due to an increasing awareness or sophistication of the departments I work with, officers seem to be prepared to see and discuss the painful thoughts they have surrounding a critical incident. Perhaps they are able to, at some level, see the irrational perspective they are taking and hope that discussion will help them correct this view and lessen the resultant pain.
The silly thought is something different. Let me illustrate this with a recent example:
A female police officer had been involved in a fatal shooting. She sought counseling about six months later due to explosive anger, inability to maintain relationships, withdrawal from friends/family, and excessive alcohol use. She had undergone a standard debriefing process and believed herself to have overcome the difficulties associated with the shooting. We started a course of standard cognitive therapy to deal with the day to day problems she was experiencing. At a certain point we went into the specifics of the shooting. I probed for the silly thought and found that this officer still had two recurring thoughts. She reviewed these thoughts frequently in her mind and they would then conjure up memories and pictures of the shooting itself. She noted that she had never told anyone about these thoughts because, after all, they were too silly!
She was the second officer on the scene of a barricaded man with knife. Both officers were of the same rank. As is customary she followed the lead of the first officer, careful not to step on his toes. At the point when she had decided to fire her gun (she was charged with a butcher knife) she remembers vividly thinking: 1. "Am I supposed to fire first? Is it going to seem rude? Will I be stepping on his toes if I fire first?" 2. "This person must not understand that I am serious about shooting. He only has a knife against two guns! Hay, I know, I won't double tap. I'll just shoot him once and then he'll know were serious, drop the knife, and be okay."
She did in fact fire first, and only once. The perpetrator was hit dead center in the heart with a 9mm hydroshock. He died. The officer revealed many of her thoughts and reactions to this situation during a critical incident stress debriefing. She never discussed these two thoughts since in light of the situation they seemed silly. The fact that she took a human life, the guilt entailed with that, the second guessing, the anger at the person she shot for making her kill him, even the anger at the other officer for not shooting first were all brought up and dealt with. They all made sense as part of what she expected to have as a result of her involvement in a shooting. Hence when she had them she was willing to talk about them and work on them. The two thoughts that included violating the etiquette of a shooting, and the failure of her plan to only hurt the guy a little bit, were silly and beneath discussion.
Since these silly thoughts were never dealt with they kept going through her mind. It kept her in touch with and reliving the critical incident. The fact that the thoughts that started the mental chain of events for her were so silly caused her to question her sanity and ability to be a cop.
The social etiquette of a shooting (or Why have silly thoughts at all).
When an officer is involved in a shooting the goals are simple: Survive and if possible stop the bad guy. But what are the social norms, the etiquette of a shooting? Officers are not trained in this and hence don't know if they should extend the little finger of the gun hand daintily as they level the Glock at the center of mass of the perpetrator. In reality people are social creatures and learn the basic rules of social intercourse through observation, practice, and instruction from friends and family. Few enough people are involved in shootings. Shootings are by definition a hairy mess. There is no real education in terms of what to do and how to act from a social etiquette point of view. Thus there is a real chance that anyone involved in a shooting may commit a faux pas. This may sound silly. That is the point.
People try to integrate their world, past experience, and belief's about how things ought to be into everything that they do. One of the effects of this may occur when one is involved in a critical incident. The officer may tend to look at certain aspects of this incident through the societal filters that may apply to other things such as afternoon tea. The mind try's to normalize an abnormal situation. The officer attempts to fit aspects of the critical incident into a social framework not designed to deal with such an event. The end result is that a person will develop some thoughts about the situation that are "silly".
However, one is supposed to have serious thoughts about serious tragic events and silly thoughts only about silly trivial events. Since a shooting is by no means trivial, one is not allowed to have silly thoughts about such a serious events. The result is an officer trapped alone with these thoughts. They see these thoughts as abnormal, themselves as crazy, and decide to keep their mouth shut. They fear scorn, ridicule, or possible departmental intervention since they may be a fruit case who couldn't handle the situation and better be put on the rubber gun squad.
For the same reason that the officer does not reveal the silly thought the debriefer does not ask it. Fear of offending, trivializing, or just sounding silly inhibit this line of questioning. Without realizing it the debrieifer gives credence to keeping the silly thought taboo.
Hunting down the silly thought As noted above this author believes that silly thoughts permeate the minds of almost anyone involved in a critical incident. Further, if these thoughts are not addressed it may hamper the processing of the event for the officer so involved. How and when does the debriefer address the silly thought?
The debriefing process should and often does have a natural flow. As a result the debriefer wants to avoid offering input while the process in going on. Allow the officer to go through the process. The initial focus should be on allowing him/her to talk about those aspects of the critical incident that seem appropriate for him/her. At first questions are asked to clarify and evoke more in depth discussion while still allowing the officer to set the direction.
This author typically waits until the symptom phase has been processed. At this point the concept of the silly thought is introduced. Usually I give one or two examples by way of another officers story (names changed of course). I then direct the officer back to the fact phase and ask if he, like other officers, had some silly thoughts. Typically I see some initial hesitation, eye contact is broken with the officer looking up in the air, a slight smile comes to the face followed by a sheepish admission of the silly thought.
At this point I start the teaching phase and were appropriate try to help the officer see his thoughts and feelings as a normal reaction to an abnormal event, including the silly thoughts. I may try to help officers see where they may be making cognitive distortions and help them alter their perspective, when appropriate. The rest of the debriefing process is completed in a relatively standard fashion.
So as can be seen the search for the silly thought is only a small addition to the debriefing process. I was initially hesitant to write this paper at all. I feared you might think it was silly.
Back to Homepage