Abstract
Two experiments investigated context effects in “weapon focus.” In Experiment 1, undergraduates who watched a videotape depicting an armed man provided less accurate descriptions of him if the action occurred in a setting in which a gun is unexpected rather than commonly seen. Identification accuracy did not vary, and the degree of threat in the man's behavior had no effect. In Experiment 2, witnesses' descriptions were poorer if the target carried an object that was inconsistent with his occupation (as indicated by his clothing style) and better if the object and occupation were not inconsistent. The results of both experiments imply that weapon focus may occur because weapons are surprising and unexpected within many contexts in which they appear.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., & Martens, T. K. (1987). The reliability of eyewitness identification: The role of system and estimator variables. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 233-258.
Cutler, B. L., Penrod, S. D., O'Rourke, T. E., & Martens, T. K. (1986). Unconfounding the effects of contextual cues on eyewitness identification accuracy. Social Behavior, 1, 113-134.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66, 183-201.
Johnson, C., & Scott, B. (1976). Eyewitness testimony and suspect identification as a function of arousal, sex of witness, and scheduling of interrogation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14, 167-184.
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.
Loftus, G. R., & Mackworth, N. H. (1978). Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 565-572.
Maass, A., & Köhnken, G. (1989). Eyewitness identification: Simulating the “weapon effect.” Law and Human Behavior, 13, 397-408.
Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus.” Memory, 6, 277-295.
Pigott, M. A., Brigham, J. C., & Bothwell, R. K. (1990). A field study of the relationship between quality of eyewitnesses' descriptions and identification accuracy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 17, 84-88.
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16, 413-424.
Tooley, V., Brigham, J. C., Maass, A., & Bothwell, R. K. (1987). Facial recognition: Weapon effect and attentional focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 845-859.
Wells, G. L. (1985). Verbal descriptions of faces from memory: Are they diagnostic of identification accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 619-626.
Yarbus, A. L. (1967). Eye movements and vision (B. Haigh, Trans.). New York: Plenum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
About this article
Cite this article
Pickel, K.L. The Influence of Context on the “Weapon Focus” Effect. Law Hum Behav 23, 299–311 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022356431375
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022356431375