1 / 18

Eyewitnesses and the Weapon Focus Effect

Eyewitnesses and the Weapon Focus Effect. Lauren Poe. Do witnesses stare at a weapon because it is threatening or just because it is unusual?. Weapon Focus.

meg
Download Presentation

Eyewitnesses and the Weapon Focus Effect

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Eyewitnesses and the Weapon Focus Effect Lauren Poe Do witnesses stare at a weapon because it is threatening or just because it is unusual?

  2. Weapon Focus Weapon Focus Effect : a witness will focus on a weapon in one’s hand, rather than the person themselves, subsequently reducing the witness’s accuracy in describing the person holding the weapon

  3. Literature Review • Some facts about “weapon focus”. Loftus, Elizabeth F.; Loftus, Geoffrey R.; Messo, Jane; Law and Human Behavior, Vol 11(1), Mar, 1987. • Eye fixations greater and longer with gun, than with check • Memory of description was less with gun, than with check • Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Kramer, Thomas H.; Buckhout, Robert; Eugenio, Paul; Law and Human Behavior, Vol 14(2), Apr, 1990. • Feature information recalled significantly less with visible weapon • Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus”. Pickel, Kerri L.; Memory, Vol 6(3), May, 1998. • Accuracy affected by unusualness, not threat • Low-threat, non-usual objects weren’t remembered

  4. Literature Review • Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus effect. Hope, Lorraine; Wright, Daniel; Applied Cognitive Psychology, Vol 21(7), Nov, 2007. • Weapon and unusual had lower recognition scores than neutral • Weapon leads to less accuracy on target appearance • Remembering and identifying menacing perpetrators: Exposure to violence and the weapon focus effect. Pickel, Kerri L.; In: The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol II: Memory for people. Lindsay, Rod C. L. (Ed.); Ross, David F. (Ed.); Read, J. Don (Ed.); Toglia, Michael P. (Ed.); Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers, 2007. • Reliabilty of weapon focus is more convincing now

  5. Hypotheses Participants in the scissors conditions will be less accurate than the participants in the comb condition Participants in the threat condition will be less accurate than the participants in the non-threat condition

  6. Participants • Sixty-seven participants • Sex • 32.8% Male • 67.2% Female • Age • 18 – 22 years • Mean: 19 years

  7. Method • Four conditions • Non-threatening Comb • Threatening Comb • Non-threatening Scissors • Threatening Scissors

  8. Method Participants viewed slideshow of event Participants filled out a questionnaire Participants completed a filler maze Participants viewed lineups and filled out lineup choices

  9. Materials Slides:

  10. Materials Slides:

  11. Materials Slides:

  12. Materials Lineups:

  13. Materials Lineups:

  14. Results • Participants in the threat conditions provided significantly more incorrect answers about the man’s appearance than those in the non-threat conditions. • t(65) = 2.31, p = .024 • Threat conditions • Mean = 2.79, SD = 1.17 • Non-threat conditions • Mean = 2.17, SD = .97 SCORING: Score = number of incorrect responses provided on survey about man’s appearance

  15. Results • Participants in the scissors/threat condition were significantly more incorrect in choosing the man from the lineup than those in the comb/threat condition. • t(38) = 2.30, p = .028 • Scissors/threat condition • Mean = -1.52, SD = 3.03 • Comb/threat condition • Mean = .8236, SD = 3.26 SCORING: Score = -5 to +5; +/- refers to correct choice (+) or incorrect choice (-), and # refers to assuredness (1 being absolutely uncertain and 5 being absolutely sure)

  16. Results • Participants in the scissors/threat condition had significantly more incorrect answers than those in the scissors/non-threat condition. • t(38) = 2.69, p = .011 • Scissors/threat condition • Mean = 2.86, SD = 1.01 • Scissors/non-threat condition • Mean = 2.00, SD = 1.00 SCORING: Score = number of incorrect responses provided on survey about man’s appearance

  17. Results • Participants in the scissors/threat condition were significantly less accurate than those in the scissors/non-threat condition. • t = -2.23, p = .032 • Scissors/threat condition • Mean = 2.71, SD = 1.68 • Scissors/non-threat condition • Mean = 4.16, SD = 2.39 SCORING: Score: a point was awarded for a correct answer and a point was taken away for an incorrect answer, using the answers provided on the man’s appearance part of the survey

  18. Conclusions • Participants in the threat condition were incorrect in their responses more than the participants in the non-threat condition. • In the threat condition, the inherently threatening object led the participants to incorrectly answer more questions than the participants in the comb/non-threat condition. • The findings show that the weapon focus effect, based on threat, can significantly affect an eyewitness’s judgment and reliability in an interrogation and/or lineup following a crime.

More Related