U nusualness and T hreat as P ossible C auses of ``W eapon F ocus

Transcription

1 Ó M E M O R Y, , 6 (3 ), 27 7 ±2 95 U nusualness and T hreat as P ossible C auses of ``W eapon F ocus K erri L. Pic ke l B all State U niversity, Indiana, U SA In tw o experim ents exploring possible causes of the ``w eapon focus effect, undergraduates view ed videotapes depicting interactions in business establish - m ents. T h e targ et character w as either em pty -h an d ed o r h eld different o b jects that varied in b o th threat and u n u su aln ess. W itnesse s attem pted to d escribe th e targ et s features and clothing, identify the object held by him (if any), and identify him in a photo line-up. T he accuracy of w itnesse s descriptions w as affected by unusu alness but not threat. Identification accuracy did not differ by condition. W itnesse s had difficulty rem em bering the low -threat, non-unusu al object; m any either failed to identify it (E x p erim en t 1 ) o r reported seeing n o ob ject (E x p erim en t 2 ). T he resu lts of both experim ents im ply that w eapon focus, w hen it occurs, m ay do so because w eapons are unexpected. INTRODUCTION For years, researchers interested in eyew itness m em ory have studied the ``w eapon focus effect. T he effect occurs w hen the presence of a w eapon in the hands of the perpetrator of a crim e som ehow adversely affects w itnesses ability to rem em ber im portant details about the crim e, such as the perpetrator s face or clothing. A classic dem onstration of w eapon focus w as conducted by L oftus, L oftus, and M esso (1987). T hey show ed college students a slide sequence depicting custom ers in line at a fast-food restaurant. In the experim ental version of the slide sequence, a m ale target confronted the cashier w ith a w eapon (a gun), and she gave him som e m oney. In the control condition, the target held an object (a bill) that w as not a w eapon. W hile they w atched the slides, the w itnesses eye m ovem ents w ere recorded using a corneal reflection device. R equests for reprints should be sent to K erri P ickel, D epartm ent of Psychological Science, B all State U niversity, M uncie, IN 47306, U S A. I a m v e ry g ra te fu l to A n d re a B re e c h, N ic co le E tc hiso n, B rian L e rn e r, a nd Je n n ife r K lim e k fo r th e ir assistance w ith data collection. I w ould also like to thank M ark B uckley, N iccole Etchison, N atalie G oeke, T racy H eadley, K en H iscox, R ay M oeller, K elly P orter, Tony P roudfoot, and D avid U pchurch fo r helping to prepare the stim ulus m aterials. Finally, thanks to D iana H eise and four anonym ous review ers fo r pro viding helpfu l com m ents on an earlier draft of this article Psych ology P ress L td

2 278 PICKEL L ater, the w itnesses com pleted a 20-item recognition test and attem pted to identify the target person in a 12-person target-present photo line-up. T he results revealed that w itnesses looked longer and m ore often at the gun than at the bill. In addition, w itnesses w ho saw the gun perform ed m ore poorly on the line-up task and (in one of the tw o experim ents) on the recognition task than did w itnesses w ho saw the bill. O ther studies have also show n that w itnesses are less able to identify a target person w hen a w eapon is present as opposed to absent (e.g. M aass & K ohnken, 1989; T ooley, B righam, M aass, & B othw ell, 1987). Furtherm ore, increased visibility of the w eapon results in w orse identification perform ance (C utler, Penrod, & M artens, 1987) and poorer recall of the target s physical features (K ram er, B uckhout, & Eugenio, 1990). In her m eta-analysis of studies in w hich the presence of a w eapon or its visibility w as m anipulated, Steblay (1992) found w eapon focus to be a reliable effect, occurring in response to a variety of stim uli (slide sequences, videos, and staged events), w hen both target-present and target-absent line-ups w ere used, and w ith various retention intervals. She further concluded (1992, p. 420) that: althoug h the o verall effect size g enerated fo r lineup accuracy is n o t o f great m agnitude [m ean effect size using Cohen s (1977) coefficient w as.13 ], it is w ell w ithin a theoretically consistent range given that w eapon absence or presence is only one of m any variables that investigators recognize as influential in lineup id en tification accuracy. T he effect size for accuracy of m em ory for the target s features w as m oderate (.55). It is not know n w hy w eapon focus occurs. It could be that, for som e reason, w itnesses visually attend to w eapons m ore than to other details in a scene. B ecause the other details receive relatively little (or no) perceptual processing, they are poorly rem em bered later. A lternatively, w itnesses could perceive w eapons and other details equally w ell but dem onstrate superior m em ory for the w eapon w hen tested later, perhaps because m em ory for the w eapon rem ains particularly strong over tim e, or because m em ory for other details deteriorates m ore easily. So far, researchers seem to endorse the form er m echanism rather than the latter (K ram er et al., 1990; L oftus et al., 1987). B ut w hat is it about w eapons that enables them to attract attention? O ne possible explanation is that w eapons produce their effect through their threatening nature: if the perpetrator is arm ed, either the w itness or another bystander m ight be injured or killed. T his explanation can be understood in term s of E asterbrook s (1959) cue-utilisation hypothesis. T he idea is that the presence of a threat w ould naturally increase a w itness s level of em otional arousal, w hich in turn w ould decrease his or her attentional capacity. T he w itness w ould have to focus his or her attention m ore narrow ly, concentrating on central rather than peripheral cues.

3 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 279 It seem s reasonable to assum e that the w itness w ould consider the w eapon to be an im portant, central cue. A s K ram er et al. (1990, p. 182) pointed out, ``during a real crim e, the w eapon m ay be the ultim ate source of inform ation. T he inform ation sought m ay be, W hat is it? Is it pointed at m e? Is it about to be used? Therefore, it follow s from E asterbrook s hypothesis that the w itness should later rem em ber the w eapon relatively w ell but should rem em ber less about other details in the visual scene than he or she norm ally w ould. The threat explanation has not fared particularly w ell in em pirical tests. Som e relevant studies have focused on arousal, rather than threat per se. If threat produces its effect by increasing arousal, then m anipulating arousal levels should bring about m uch the sam e result as should m anipulating threat. Tooley et al. (1987) show ed college students photos of target persons w ho held either w eapons or other objects. T he researchers m anipulated arousal during the view ing of the stim uli by presenting bursts of w hite noise to students in the experim ental condition and leading them to believe that they m ight receive an electric shock. (A lthough the shock m anipulation is clearly a threat, the researchers stated purpose w as to exam ine the effects of arousal, not threat.) Students in the control condition did not receive w hite noise bursts or a w arning that they m ight be shocked. T he researchers also m anipulated attentional focus, instructing different participants to look at different areas of the photos. D raw ing on E asterbrook s hypothesis, they predicted that increased arousal w ould im prove participants m em ory for the details on w hich they focused their attention w hile decreasing their ability to rem em ber other inform ation. T he results did not support the prediction. A m ain effect of arousal w as obtained such that the hit rate for identifying targets decreased w ith high arousal. H ow ever, d w as not affected. It is w orth em phasising that in T ooley et al. s study, the source of arousal w as the w hite noise and the electric shock w arning, not the w eapon or any visible inform ation in the photos. The effects of arousal m ay be different if its source is part of the to-be-rem em bered inform ation. A s C hristianson (1992, p. 285) noted, ``in an eyew itness situation, the issue of interest is w hat an eyew itness rem em bers about a traum atic event, not w hat the w itness is able to rem em ber in the m idst of the traum atic experience. K ram er et al. (1990) found that, w hen a w eapon in a scene w as plainly visible as opposed to m ostly hidden, w itnesses not only rem em bered less about the target person but also reported higher levels of arousal. T he researchers conducted a series of follow -up experim ents in order to determ ine w hether heightened arousal necessarily accom panies the w eapon focus effect, and they discovered that it does not. K ram er et al. obtained the effect even w hen neutral, non-arousing stim uli w ere used and w itnesses self-reported arousal w as low. T hus, this study provides no support for the hypothesis that increased arousal causes w eapon focus. In contrast to the studies just discussed, Steblay (1992) reported som e evidence that arousal or threat m ay be related to the strength of the w eapon

4 280 PICKEL focus effect. In her m eta-analysis, she grouped together seven studies in w hich a w eapon w as visible but no crim e occurred, or the target character in the scenario carried an object that could be dangerous but w as not a prototy pical w eapon. Steblay considered the scenarios in these studies to be less arousing than scenarios involving prototypical w eapons, crim es in progress, or ``real-life, staged scenarios. H ow ever, they could also be seen as less threatening, if threat is defined as the possibility that either the research participant or a character in the stim ulus videotape could experience physical injury or pain. T he results of the m eta-analysis show ed a sm aller w eapon focus effect in the seven low - arousal, low -threat studies com pared to the other research analysed. In another study, M aass and K ohnken (1989) directly m anipulated threat (w hich w as directed tow ards the research participants). Participants w ere approached by a confederate w ho carried either a syringe (considered a w eapon) or an ink pen (not a w eapon). T he confederate either did or did not lead subjects to believe that they w ould receive an injection as part of the experim ent (this w as the threat m anipulation). D ependent m easures included recognition of the confederate and recall of the confederate s features. T he authors found no m ain effect of threat of injection and no interaction betw een threat and presence of the w eapon. A lthough the results of this study do not support threat as an explanation for w eapon focus, perhaps this explanation should not yet be abandoned. M aass and K ohnken reasoned that they could use a syringe to create a situation that w ould be threatening to participants because injections m ake m any people nervous or fearful, and injections can briefly cause pain. H ow ever, this situation differs from the situation experienced by a w itness to a crim e: guns and knives can cause perm anent harm or death, w hereas injections are often associated w ith m edical benefits. It w ould be useful to exam ine the effects of threat w hen threat is defined as the potential for physical injury or death to a w itness or another bystander rather than the potential for pain. T ollestrup, T urtle, and Y uille (1994) exam ined the reports of individuals w ho observed actual robberies and m ay have been in real fear for their lives. If perceived threat has any effect, that effect should be m ore pronounced in these observers than in laboratory research participants. T ollestrup et al. grouped the robberies according to w hether a w eapon w as present (either visible or im plied) or absent, and categorised the observers as either victim s or w itnesses. W itnesses did not rem em ber m ore inform ation or m ore accurate inform ation than did victim s. T his result m ay suggest that level of perceived threat did not m atter, as the victim s quite possibly felt m ore threatened than did the w itnesses. O n the other hand, one can not be certain how either group of observers felt. The researchers also found that the presence of a w eapon did not reduce the num ber of details provided by observers or the accuracy of the details, but did decrease identification accuracy. In trying to explain w hy the results involving the descriptions differed from typical laboratory results, T ollestrup et al. argued that the m ethod of questioning lab participants (cued recall) is not the sam e as the

5 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 281 m ethod used by police officers (w itnesses are asked to provide free recall). A nother possibility that the researchers apparently did not consider is that being arm ed could m ake a perpetrator feel bolder or less hurried. T hus, in the Tollestrup et al. study, the perpetrators w ith w eapons m ight have been observed for a longer tim e or at a closer distance than w ere w eaponless perpetrators, w hich could im prove w itnesses ability to describe them. In this w ay, the w eapon focus effect could have been attenuated, as w ell as any effect of threat that m ay have existed. B esides threat, another possible explanation for w eapon focus is that, to a crim e w itness, w eapons m ay som etim es seem unusual w ithin certain contexts in w hich they appear, and unusual objects attract attention. A lthough w e all know that robberies som etim es occur, m ost of us do not really expect to see a custom er in line ahead of us at a fast-food restaurant pull a gun out of his or her pocket. T herefore, w e m ight fixate on the gun sim ply because it is unexpected. C iting research show ing that view ers fixate on surprising objects in pictures (L oftus & M ackw orth, 1978; Y arbus, 1967), K ram er et al. (1990, p.1 82) speculated that a w eapon ``m ay lead to surprise in a w itness, thus adding further to his or her tendency to stare at it. O ne im plication of this hypothesis is that any unusual object, w hether it is a w eapon or not, should produce the ``w eapon focus effect. L oftus et al. (1987) suggested that a banana in the hand of the robber in the fast food restaurant m ight w ork just as w ell as a gun, although they did not test this possibility. Sh aw and Sk oln ick (199 4) attem pted w ha t ap pea rs to be the on ly experim ental test of the unusualness explanation thus far. In their study, college students w atched a brief slide series depicting a target person in a university hallw ay. N o crim e w as show n or im plied. In different conditions, the target carried either a w eapon (a handgun), one of four objects rated as unusual by pilot participants, or a m agazine. U nfortunately, the unusualness explanation could not be evaluated, because the authors failed to obtain a w eapon focus effect. T hey speculated that the sim plicity and the non-arousing nature of the slide series m ay have contributed to the failure to find the effect. In any event, the results of this experim ent d o not rule out the possibility that w eapon focus could be caused by the fact that w eapons are unusual. The purpose of the present study w as to exam ine both threat and unusualness as possible explanations for w eapon focus. In tw o experim ents involving tw o different scenarios, participants w atched one version of a videotape depicting a m ale target in a business establishm ent. In different conditions, the target carried different objects (and in one condition he carried nothing). T he unusualness and threat associated w ith the objects varied independently. T hreat w as operationally defined as the p ossibility that physical harm or death w ould befall another character in the video. A lim itation of this m ethodology is that the threat is not ``real in the sense that it is directed tow ards a character in a video rather than tow ards a real person. T he threat w ould be m ore realistic if the research

6 282 PICKEL participants them selves w ere threatened w ith injury or death as they view ed a staged event, but of course such a procedure w ould be unethical. B ecause previous researchers have successfully obtained the w eapon focus effect using videotaped scenarios or slide sequences, it is clear that participants m ust be able to appreciate the threat involved, if it is in fact the threatening nature of w eapons that produces the effect. T herefore, the procedure for m anipulating threat in the present study m ay be seen as an acceptable com prom ise betw een w hat is m ethodologically optim al and w hat is ethical. A fter w atching the video, the w itnesses tried to rem em ber inform ation from it, including w hat the target looked like. It w as predicted that w itnesses w ould rem em ber less inform ation about the target w hen he carried an unusual rather than a com m on object. B ecause previous research has exam ined arousal rather than threat or has defined threat differently from in the present study, no specific prediction w as m ade about w hether the level of threat w ould affect m em ory for the target w hen threat w as defined as the potential for physical injury or death. EXPERIMENT 1 Method P articipants. T he participants w ere 230 introductory psychology students at a m edium -sized university in the M id w estern U nited States. T hey received course credit for participating. T hey w ere tested in groups of 3 to 10. M aterials. A videotape w as created w hich w as set in a hair salon. T he opening scene show ed the exterior of the building, including a sign identifying the business as a hair salon. In the interior shots that follow ed, a fem ale receptionist w as show n answ ering the telephone behind the front counter and w riting dow n appointm ent inform ation on a calendar. A nother shot show ed a fem ale custom er leafing through a m agazine in the w aiting area. H air-care products w ere visible on shelves behind her. Follow ing these scenes establishing the context, a m ale character (the target) approached the counter and spoke to the receptionist. She spoke to him in reply and handed him som e m oney. (V iew ers could not tell w hat w as said because the video had no soundtrack.) H e then w alked out of the front door and got into the passenger side of a w aiting car, w hich drove aw ay. In different conditions, the target w as show n holding different objects that varied in both threat (w hich could be either high or low ) and unusualness (w hich could also be either high or low ). In an additional (``E m pty ) condition, the target carried nothing. Pilot data w ere used to identify objects that participants w ould consider unusual and threatening w ithin the context of a hair salon. Participants w ere asked to im agine sitting in the w aiting area of a hair salon and seeing a m an approach the reception ist w hile holding various objects. U sing a 9- point scale, they rated either how unusual or how threatening each object w ould

7 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 283 seem. A n unusual object w as defined as one that w as unexpected or out of place given the hair salon context. T hreat w as defined as the possibility that the receptionist w ould be physically harm ed or killed. A fter the pilot data w ere analysed, the follow ing objects w ere chosen: the item high in threat and low in unusualness w as a pair o f scissors used for cutting hair; the item high in threat and high in unusualness w as a handgun; the item low in threat and low in unusualness w as a m an s w allet; and the item low in threat and high in unusualness w as a raw, w hole chicken. Pilot participants rated the w allet and the chicken significantly low er in threat than the gun and the scissors, but the gun s ratings w ere not different from the scissors, and the chicken s ratings w ere not different from the w allet s. Sim ilarly, the chicken and the gun w ere rated as m ore unusual than the scissors and the w allet, but the chicken and gun did not differ from each other, nor did the scissors and the w allet. In the versions of the video that show ed an object, the object w as alw ays plainly visible w henever the target w as in the scene. W hen the target approached the counter to talk to the receptionist, he extended his hand (and also the object, except in the E m pty condition) tow ards her. In the condition in w hich he held the scissors, the target gripped them w ith the blades facing dow nw ard, as one w ould if planning to use them to stab rather than to cut hair. This w as done in order to increase the likelihood that view ers w ould see the scissors as threatening. C are w as taken to ensure that the target s hand and body m ovem ents and facial expressions w ere the sam e in each condition. The target held each object w ith his right hand. If the video had portrayed a scene that w as obviously a robbery, view ers m ight have perceived the target s actions as threatening no m atter w hat he did, and they m ight not have considered a gun to be out of context if they knew right aw ay that they w ere w itnessing the robbery of a business. T herefore, so that unusualness and threat could be m anipulated, visual details that m ight have conclusively established the situation as a robbery w ere avoided. T he target did not w ear a m ask or disguise, and the receptionist did not raise her hands in the air or react w ith fear w hen the target approached. Instead, the scenes depicted a typical day at a hair salon, at least until the target w as show n w alking up to the counter. A t that point, it w as up to the view ers to decide how to interpret the situation and to decide w hat they thought the target w as doing in the hair salon. P rocedure. O n arriving for the testing session, participants w ere told that they w ould w atch a short videotape and w ere asked to pay close attention. E ach group of participants w as assigned random ly to one of the five conditions. T he running tim e for each version of the video w as approxim ately tw o m inutes. A fter w atching the video, the w itnesses spent 10 m inutes com pleting a filler questionnaire. N ext, the w itnesses filled out a questionnaire requiring them to rem em ber inform ation from the video. T he first section focused on the receptionist, w ho

8 284 PICKEL served as the control person. T he questions w ere a m ix ture of m ultiple choice and cued recall and asked about the receptionist s height, w eight, hair length and colour, ethnicity, age, and clothing. T he w itnesses w ere also asked about other physical features such as spectacles, scars, or tattoos. Finally, they w ere given an opportunity to describe any other aspect of the receptionist s physical features or clothing that had not been specifically asked about already. T he second section requested sim ilar inform ation about the target. Finally, a series of three questions concluded the questionnaire. First, w itnesses w ere asked w hether the target w as carrying anything in his hand as he approached the receptionist. T hose w ho answ ered ``yes w ere asked to identify the object. L ast, the w itnesses w ere asked w hat they thought the target w as doing in the hair salon. A fter com pleting the questionnaire, the w itnesses individually attem pted to identify the target in a five-person, target-present photo line-up. T he m ales show n in the photos w ere dressed alike and w ere sim ilar in term s of height, w eight, and physical features. The photos w ere random ly arranged in a row on a desk. W itnesses w ere instructed to point to the photo that show ed the m an seen earlier in the video, if he w as in fact present in the line-up. W itnesses w ere explicitly told that the m an m ight not be in any of the photos, and they could point to an index card labelled ``not pictured if they w ished. A fter m aking a selection, w itnesses w ere asked to use a 7-point scale to rate their confidence that the selection w as accurate. Finally, the w itnesses w ere thanked and debriefed. Results T he m em ory questionnaires w ere evaluated by tw o judges w orking independently. For each w itness, separate scores w ere calculated that reflected the num ber of item s accurately rem em bered about the receptionist and the target. T he judges also determ ined w hether the w itnesses had correctly answ ered the questions about the object carried by the target, and they categorised w itnesses answ ers regarding w hat the target w as doing in the hair salon as either com m itting a robbery or engaging in any other activity. M em ory scores for C ontrol and Target P ersons. B ecause w itnesses w ere given am ple tim e to view the receptionist (the control person) before seeing the scenes that included the critical objects, it w as expected that m em ory for the characte ristics of the re ce ptionist w o uld no t be affected by either the unusualness m anipulation or the threat m anipulation. T hat expectation w as supported. A one-w ay analysis of variance show ed no difference betw een any of the five conditions, F(4,2 25) =.4 1, P =.8 0. T he m ean recall score for all w itnesses w as 9.93.

9 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 285 H ow ever, m em ory for the target s characteristics did vary by condition. In order to determ ine w hether any m ain effects or an interaction occurred, a tw o- w ay analysis of variance w as perform ed on the m em ory scores from all conditions except the E m pty condition. A significant m ain effect of unusualness w as found (see Fig. 1), F(1,1 81) = 8.4 1, P = W itnesses rem em bered less about the target if they saw one of the tw o unusual objects (the gun or the chicken; M = 7.5 2) rather than one of the tw o non-unusual objects (the scissors or the w allet; M = 8.3 3). T here w as no m ain effect of threat. T he w itnesses rem em bered about the sam e am ount of inform ation regardless of w hether they saw a threatening object (the gun or the scissors) or a low -threat object (the chicken or the w allet). Furtherm ore, no interaction betw een threat and unusualness w as obtained. A one-w ay analysis of variance w as used to discover w hether the E m pty condition differed from any of the other four. A significant effect w as found, F(4,2 25) = 5.4 0, P < A post hoc N ew m an-k euls test revealed that w itnesses in the Em pty condition (M = 9.0 2; n = 45) rem em bered m ore than did those w ho saw either the gun (M = 7.83; n = 46) or the chicken (M = 7.2 1; n = 47). In FIG. 1. E xperim ent 1 : D escrip tive info rm ation rem em bered by w itnesses as a fu nction of un u su a ln es s.

10 286 PICKEL addition, the w itness w ho saw the chicken reported less inform ation than did those w ho saw the w allet (M = 8.5 3; n = 43). The num ber of details rem em bered by the w itnesses w ho saw the scissors (M = 8.1 4; n = 49) did not differ from the m eans of any of the other condition s. Line-up. T he percentage of w itnesses w ho correctly identified the target in the photo line-up did not vary by condition; overall accuracy w as 39%. W itnesses w ho m ade a correct identification w ere m ore confident in the accuracy of their choice (M = 4.2 0) than w ere those w ho m ade incorrect identifications (M = 3.44), t(228) = 3.6 2, P < A t-test w as used to determ ine w hether the accuracy of w itnesses identification of the target w as related to the am ount of inform ation they rem em bered about him, but no significant difference w as found. B ecause w itn esses perform ed the line-up task individually, chi-square analyses w ere conducted to rule out the possibility that the first w itnesses to attem pt an identification w ere m ore accurate or reported higher confidence than did w itnesses tested later. The results revealed that testing order w as unrelated to w itnesses identification accuracy or confidence ratings. M em ory for the O bject. The vast m ajority of the w itnesses in all conditions (98% overall) knew w hether the target w as carrying anything; furtherm ore, a chi-square test revealed that there w as no difference in accuracy across the five conditions. H ow ever, w itnesses w ho saw the w allet (in the low -threat, nonunusual condition) w ere less likely to rem em ber w hat the object w as, x 2 (3, N = 185) = , P < O nly 45% (19 of 42) of the w itnesses correctly identified the w allet, w hereas identification w as nearly perfect in the other three conditions: 98% (46 of 47) correctly identified the chicken, 100% (49 of 49) identified the scissors, and 100% (46 of 46) identified the gun. N one of the w itnesses w ho saw the w allet m isidentified it w hen asked w hat it w as; instead, those w ho failed to identify it tended to w rite ``I don t rem em ber or to leave the question blank. Interpretation of the Scenario. W itnesses w ere asked to speculate about w hat the target w as doing in the hair salon. A lm ost all of them, in all conditions, proposed a plausible interpretation of the scenario rather than failing to answ er the question or w riting that they had no idea w hat w as happening. R esponses w ere coded as either reflecting the opinion that the target w as robbing the business or that he w as engaging in som e other activity, such as paying for his haircut and getting change back, or borrow ing m oney from the receptionist, w ho m ight be a friend of his. W itnesses interpretations of the scenario varied by condition, x 2 (4, N = 230) = , P < A ll of the w itnesses (100% ) w ho saw the target carrying a gun thought a robbery w as taking place, com pared to 60% w ho saw the chicken, 55% w ho saw the scissors, 49% w ho saw the w allet, and 33% w ho saw the target em pty-handed.

11 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 287 It is especially im portant to exam ine the interpretations of w itnesses w ho saw the unusual object that w as not a w eapon, because of the concern that these w itnesses m ay have considered the scenario to be unrealistic or bizarre. T he responses of these w itnesses reveal that m ost of those w ho saw the chicken and w ho did not believe the scenario depicted a robbery found an interpretation that apparently seem ed reasonable to them. M any of them speculated that the target had intended to give the chicken to the receptionist or sell it to her. O nly tw o w itnesses said they did not know how to interpret the scenario. A t-test w as conducted to exam ine the possibility that w itnesses w ho interpreted the scenario as a robbery w ould rem em ber less inform ation about the target than w ould w itnesses w ho interpreted the scenario differently. N o significant difference w as found. In addition, a chi-square test revealed no relationship betw een w itnesses interpretations of the scenario and the accuracy of their line-up identification. Discussion T he results suggest that, even w hen threat is explicitly defined as the possibility that som eone m ay be injured or killed, w eapon focus does not depend on threat. T he threat m anipulation did not affect the am ount of inform ation w itnesses correctly rem em bered about the target or their ability to identify him in a lineup. Furtherm ore, if threat played a role in w eapon focus, w e m ight expect w itnesses w ho interpreted the scenario as a robbery to rem em ber less about the target than w ould w itnesses w ho interpreted the scenario differently. T he basis for this expectation is that a robbery is a threatening situation; it is m ore likely to lead to violence than is a business transaction or a conversation betw een friends. H ow ever, m em ory for the target s features w as not related to w itnesses interpretations of the scenario. O n the other hand, unusualness did have a significant effect. W itnesses rem em bered less inform ation about the target if he carried an object that w as unusual given the context. It m ay be that w eapons, due to their unusualness, attract visual attention. Loftus et al. (1987) found that w itnesses w ho view ed the fast-food restaurant scenario spent m ore tim e looking at the w eapon than at the m ore com m on item, the bill. Sim ilarly, w itnesses in the present study m ay have looked m ore at the object carried by the target if it w as unusual rather than expected. A lthough data on w itnesses eye m ovem ents and fixations w ere not collected, it is interesting to note that less than half of the w itnesses w ho saw one of the non-unusual objects, the w allet (but alm ost all the w itnesses in the other conditions), w ere later able to identify w hat they had seen. This pattern, w hich m atches the results of L oftus et al. (1987) but not Johnson and Scott (1976), could have occurred because these w itnesses only glanced briefly at the w allet, w hereas w itnesses in other conditions gazed longer at the objects they saw. O f course, there could be other explanations for the result; for exam ple, for som e

12 288 PICKEL reason the w allet could have been m ore forgettable com pared to the other objects. It m ust also be noted that the other non-unusual object, the pair of scissors, w as rem em bered w ell by w itnesses. A nother finding w as that w eapon focus w as obtained only w ith w itnesses descriptions of the target, and not w ith line-up identification. C onsistent w ith this finding, Steblay (1992) reported that her m eta-analysis revealed a stronger w eapon focus effect w hen the dependent variable w as feature accuracy rather than identification accuracy. A lso, W ells (1985) found that the quality of a w itness s description of a particular face is not a good predictor of the sam e w itness s ability to identify the sam e face in a line-up. M em ory for descriptive inform ation is a m ore sensitive m easure than line-up identification; in the present study, som e of the questions assessing feature m em ory involved recall, w hereas the line-up task required recognition. In addition, the range of possible scores w as greater in the feature m em ory task. T hese differences m ay explain w hy the presence of a w eapon can influence line-up accuracy m ore than descriptive accuracy. EXPERIMENT 2 T he results of E xperim ent 1 im ply that w eapons attract attention because they are surprising, not because w itnesses are concerned about the possibility that som eone m ay get hurt or killed. H ow ever, it is im portant to verify that the results can be generalised to other contexts and w ere not obtained sim ply because of som e peculiar aspect of the stim ulus scenario. The m ain purpose of E xperim ent 2 w as to replicate the first study, using a different scenario and different objects. A secondary purpose w as to incorporate a m anipulation check in order to confirm that w itnesses perceptions of the unusualness and am ount of threat associated w ith the different objects w ere consistent w ith the ratings given by pilot participants. A fter view ing the scenario, w itnesses w ho reported seeing an object w ere asked to rate the unusualness and am ount of threat associated w ith that object. Method P articipants. T he participants w ere 256 introductory psychology students attending the sam e university at w hich Experim ent 1 participants w ere enrolled. They received course credit for participating. They w ere tested in groups of 3 to 12. M aterials. T he stim ulus w as a videotaped scenario set in a shop w here electronic equipm ent is repaired. A t the beginning of the video, the exterior of the building w as show n, including a sign identifying the business by advertising ``radio and T V service and nam ing a w ell-know n television brand. In the interior shot that follow ed, a fem ale receptionist w as seen seated behind a desk.

13 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 289 Stereo equipm ent and a television w ere visible at one end of the desk. A fem ale custom er entered the shop carry ing a V C R. She spoke w ith the receptionist, signed a form, and w alked out, leaving the V C R behind. In the final part of the video, the m ale target approached the receptionist and spoke to her. She replied and gave him som e m oney. H e left the shop, got into a car, and drove aw ay. A s in the previous experim ent, the situation depicted in the video w as am biguous rather than obviously a robbery. T he target s relationship to the receptionist and his purpose for being in the shop w ere never m ade explicit. T he video did not include a soundtrack. A s in Experim ent 1, there w ere five different versions of the video. The target w as show n either em pty-handed or carrying one of four different objects that varied in both threat and unusualness. Pilot data w ere used to identify objects that w ould be considered unusual or threatening w ithin the context of a TV /radio repair shop (both unusualness and threat w ere defined as in E xperim ent 1). Participants w ere asked to im agine being in a T V and radio repair shop and seeing a m an w alk up to the counter to talk to the clerk w hile holding various objects. T hey used a 9-point scale to rate either how unusual or how threatening each object w ould seem. T he follow ing objects w ere chosen: the object high in threat and low in unusualness w as a large screw driver; the object high in threat and high in unusualness w as a butcher kn ife; the object low in threat and low in unusualness w as a pair of sunglasses; and the object low in threat and high in unusualness w as a toy Pillsbury doughboy figure. T he sunglasses and the doughboy w ere rated significantly low er in threat than the knife and the screw driver, but the knife s ratings w ere not different from the screw driver s, and the doughboy s ratings w ere not different from those of the sunglasses. Sim ilarly, pilot participants rated the doughboy and the knife as m ore unusual than the screw driver and the sunglasses, but the doughboy and knife did not differ from each other, nor did the screw driver and the sunglasses. In the four conditions that included an object, the object w as alw ays plainly visible w henever the target w as in the scene. W hen he approached the receptionist, he extended his hand (and also the object, excep t in the E m pty condition) tow ards her. In order to increase the level of threat in the screw driver condition, the target gripped it as one w ould to m ake a stabbing m otion, not as one w ould to tighten a screw. T he target s hand and body m ovem ents and facial expressions w ere held constant in each condition, and he held each object w ith his right hand. Procedure. The procedure w as the sam e as in Experim ent 1. E ach group of participants w as assigned random ly to one of the five conditions. A fter view ing the video, w itnesses com pleted a questionnaire asking them to rem em ber the physical features and clothing of both the target and the custom er w ho brought her V C R in for repair (she served as the control person). W itnesses w ere also

14 290 PICKEL asked w hether the target w as show n holding any object, and if they answ ered that he w as, they w ere asked to describe it. A s m anipulation checks, tw o new questions w ere added that w ere not asked in E xperim ent 1. W itnesses w ho reported that the target w as carrying an object w ere asked to use a 9-point scale to rate (1) how unusual it w as that the target w as carrying the object, and (2) how threatening the object carried by the target seem ed. W itnesses w ere told to skip both questions if they had previously reported that the target w as not carrying anything. Follow ing com pletion of the questionnaire, w itnesses attem pted to identify the target in a five-person, target-present photo line-up. T hey subsequently rated their confidence in the accuracy of their choice on a 7-point scale. Results W itnesses questionnaires w ere scored as in E xperim ent 1, by tw o judges w orking independently. For each w itness, a m em ory score w as calculated that reflected the am ount of inform ation the w itness rem em bered about the target s features. T he judges also evaluated w itnesses responses about the object carried by the target (if any) and categorised w itnesses answ ers regarding w hat the target w as doing in the repair shop as either com m itting a robbery or engaging in som e other activity. M anipulation C heck. W itnesses w ho w ere show n an object and w ho reported that the target w as carrying an object w ere asked to rate how threatening and how unusual the object seem ed. A total of 37 ratings w ere excluded from analysis becau se they w ere m ade by w itnesses w ho did not correctly identify the object held by the target, w hich left a total of 166 ratings (sunglasses n = 22; screw driver n = 45; doughboy n = 49; knife n = 50). A onew ay analysis of variance show ed that the threat ratings differed betw een conditions, F (3,1 62) = 98.61, P < A post hoc N ew m an-k euls test verified that the m anipulation w as successful. T he threat ratings for the tw o high-threat objects (the knife, M = 7.7 6; and the screw driver, M = 6.96) w ere significantly higher than the ratings for the tw o low -threat objects (the doughboy, M = 2.2 9; and the sunglasses, M = 1.5 9). T here w as no difference betw een the tw o highthreat objects or betw een the tw o low -threat objects. T he unusualness ratings also varied by condition, F(3,1 62) = , P < A post hoc N ew m an-k euls test show ed that this m anipulation w as also successful. T he tw o highly unusual objects (the knife, M = 8.5 8; and the doughboy, M = 7.8 6) w ere given higher ratings than w ere the tw o non-unusual objects (the screw driver, M = 4.2 2; and the sunglasses, M = 3.2 3). N o difference w as found betw een the tw o highly unusual objects or betw een the tw o nonunusual objects.

15 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 291 M em ory Scores for C ontrol and Target P ersons. W itnesses m em ory for the features of the custom er (w ho w as the control person) did not vary by condition, F (4,2 51) =.1 9, P =.95. T he m ean recall score for all w itnesses w as H ow ever, there w ere differences in w itnesses m em ory for the target s characteristics. A tw o-w ay analysis of variance revealed a significant m ain effect o f u nu su aln ess (see F ig. 2), F (1,19 9) = 5.7 0, P =.0 2. W itne sse s rem em bered less about the target if they saw him holding one of the tw o unusual objects (the knife or the doughboy; M = 6.6 3) rather than one of the tw o non-unusual objects (the screw driver or the sunglasses; M = 7.4 1). N o m ain effect of threat w as obtained; m em ory scores w ere about the sam e regardless of w hether the objects w ere threatening (knife or screw driver) or not (doughboy or sunglasses). T here w as also no interaction betw een unusualness and threat. A one-w ay analysis of variance w as used to com pare the Em pty condition to the other four. T he analysis revealed a significant effect, F (4,2 51) = 5.3 6, P < A post hoc N ew m an-k euls test indicated that w itnesses in the E m pty condition (M = 8.36; n = 53) rem em bered m ore inform ation than did those w ho FIG. 2. E xperim ent 2 : D escrip tive info rm ation rem em bered by w itnesses as a fu nction of un u su a ln es s.

16 c 292 PICKEL saw either the knife (M = 6.7 1; n = 52), the doughboy (M = 6.5 5; n = 51), or the screw driver (M = 7.0 0; n = 50). Furtherm ore, the m em ory scores of the w itnesses w ho saw the doughboy w ere low er than the scores of those w ho saw the sunglasses (M = 7.8 2; n = 50). Line- up. T he percentage of w itnesses correctly identifying the target did not differ by condition. T he overall accuracy rate w as 23%. In contrast to the results of E xperim ent 1, w itnesses w ho accurately identified the target w ere not m ore confident than w ere w itnesses w ho m ade an incorrect identification. In addition, a t-test show ed that identification accuracy w as not related to the am ount of inform ation rem em bered about the target s features. C hi-square tests w ere used to determ ine w hether testing order w as related to identification accuracy or w itnesses confidence ratings. T he results w ere not significant. M em ory for the O bject. W itnesses w ere asked w hether the target w as carrying anything. T he percentage w ho responded correctly varied by condition, 2 (4, N = 256) = , P < O nly 54% (27 of 50) of the w itnesses w ho saw the sunglasses reported that the target w as carrying som ething, com pared to 100% (52 of 52) w ho saw the knife, 94% (47 of 50) w ho saw the screw driver, and 94% (48 of 51) w ho saw the doughboy. In the E m pty condition, 79% (42 of 53) of the w itnesses correctly reported that the target carried nothing. O f the w itnesses w ho said the target w as carrying som ething, alm ost all correctly identified the object, and there w ere no differences betw een conditions (p ercentage that correctly identified the knife = 100% ; screw driver = 96% ; 2 doughboy = 92% ; sunglasses = 93% ), c (3, N = 174) = 4.5 3, P >.0 5. Interpretation of the Scenario. Som e w itnesses in each condition thought the scenario depicted a robbery, w hereas others thought the target had com e to the repair shop to borrow m oney from a friend or to com plain about the service 2 and get a refund. W itnesses interpretations differed by condition, c (4, N = 255) = , P < In the condition in w hich the knife w as visible, 48% of the w itnesses interpreted the scenario as a robbery, com pared to 20% of the w itnesses w ho saw the screw driver, 14% w ho saw the doughboy, 12% w ho saw the sunglasses, and 15% in the E m pty condition. A t-test revealed that w itnesses interpretations w ere not related to the am ount of inform ation rem em bered about the target, and a chi-square test show ed no relationship betw een interpretations and line-up accuracy. A s in E xperim ent 1, responses w ritten by w itnesses w ho saw the unusual object that w as not a w eapon w ere carefully exam ined. T he purpose w as to verify that these w itnesses did not view the scenario as absurd. O f the w itnesses w ho saw the doughboy and w ho did not interpret the scenario as a robbery, m ost either believed that the target w as a custom er bringing in or picking up

17 UNUSUALNESS AND THREAT IN ``WEAPON FOCUS 293 electronic equipm ent to be repaired, the clerk s friend or relative w ho w as borrow ing or requesting m oney from her, or a shop em ployee picking up his pay or a w ork order. Som e m entioned that the doughboy w as probably a gift for the clerk or som e other person. O nly tw o w itnesses failed to answ er the question, and one said that he or she did not know how to interpret the scenario. Discussion M ost of the results obtained in E xperim ent 1 w ere replicated in E xperim ent 2. A s before, w itnesses ability to rem em ber the target s features depended on unusualness rather than threat. N ot only w as the threat m anipulation ineffective, but in addition, interpreting the scenario as a robbery (i.e. as a threatening situation) did not lead to poorer m em ory perform ance. T hus, the results of E xperim ent 2 give w eight to the hypothesis that the w eapon focus effect is caused by the unusualness of w eapons. O ne difference in the findings of the tw o experim ents concerns w itnesses m em ory for the low -threat, non-unusual object. In Experim ent 1, w itnesses w ho saw the w allet tended to report seeing an object but often failed to identify it correctly, w hereas in E xperim ent 2, alm ost half of the w itnesses w ho saw the sunglasses incorrectly reported that the target carried nothing, althoug h m ost of those w ho reported seeing an object identified it. A n explanation proposed for the E xperim ent 1 results w as that w itnesses m ay have spent relatively little tim e looking at the w allet, so that later they believed that they had seen som ething but w ere not sure w hat it w as. T he sam e explanation m ight account for the E xperim ent 2 findings as w ell. T he w itnesses m ay have spent very little tim e looking at the sunglasses (perhaps even less tim e than E xperim ent 1 w itnesses spent looking at the w allet), and as a result, m any of them later did not recall seeing anything at all. The data do not allow an opportunity to either support or refute this speculation. Future research could m easure eye m ovem ents as a m eans of determ ining how unusualness affects looking tim e, and in turn how looking tim e m ay affect w itnesses ability to rem em ber both w hether they saw som e object and w hat that object w as. GENERAL DISCUSSION T aken together, the results of both experim ents im ply that, w hen the ``w eapon focus effect occurs, it is caused by the unexpected nature of w eapons rather than by threat. In both experim ents, unusualness, but not threat, affected w itnesses m em ory for descriptive inform ation about the target. T he failure to find a m ain effect of threat extends previous w ork exploring the influence of various aspects of both threat and em otional arousal. It appears that neither of these variables is needed to produce w eapon focus, regardless of w hether the threat involves physical pain or uncom fortableness that the research participant m ay experience (e.g. M aass & K ohnken, 1989) or injury or death that m ay occur

18 294 PICKEL to a crim e victim or bystander depicted in a videotaped scenario, as in the present study. It is necessary again to acknow ledge a lim itation of the present results, w hich is that the threat w as directed tow ards characters in the videos, not tow ards the participant or a real person. If a character had been killed or injured, the situation m ight have seem ed to participants like a m ovie, in w hich graphic violence can be portrayed, but no real harm is done; in this w ay, the effect of threat m ight have been reduced. H ow ever, as noted earlier, this problem does not severely reduce the validity of the present results. Several previous researchers have m anaged to obtain the w eapon focus effect using videotapes or slide sequences as stim uli. T herefore, if threat is actually the cause of this effect, then threats directed at characters m ust be, in som e sense, ``real to participants. A s a result, the present findings should not be dism issed, even though they m ust be interpreted cautiously. U ntil researchers can devise a w ay to threaten real people w ith injury or death w ithout violating ethical regulations, the study of w eapon focus m ight be better advanced if researchers w ould concentrate on other possible explanations besides threat. O ne such explanation is that w eapons seem unusual w ithin m any of the contexts in w hich they appear, and this unusualness attracts the visual attention of the w itness, causing him or her to gaze m ore at the w eapon and less at other details (see K ram er et al., 1990). In fact, it m ay be that ``w eapon focus has been defined too narrow ly. Perhaps w itnesses can be distracted by any unusual object that seem s out of place given the context, w hether that object is a w eapon or not. T hus, w hen a target carries an object that one rarely sees in a hair salon, w itnesses m ay spend relatively m ore tim e looking at it and less tim e looking at the target s features. L ater, they w ill have trouble rem em b ering those features, but can easily rem em ber the unusual object. O n the other hand, if the target is carrying a non-unusual, expected item, w itnesses w ill spend less tim e looking at it and m ore tim e looking at the target s features. L ater, they w ill recall the target s features relatively w ell, but they m ay not rem em ber the non-unusual object. O ne im plication of the unusualness explanation is that an object s ability to attract attention should change w ith context. A gun m ay be unexpected in a hair salon, but not at a shooting range. In the latter context, the ``w eapon focus effect should not be obtained at all. T he results of this study should not be interpreted as suggestin g that crim inals com m only com m it robberies arm ed w ith chickens or toy dolls, or that the results w ould generalise only to situations in w hich these particular objects are present. T he point of including conditions in w hich the perpetrator carried these objects w as to dem onstrate that an effect that has been referred to in the literature for years as ``w eapon focus can be produced by objects that are not w eapons, possibly because unusualness is the causal factor. A s a secondary point, how ever, it has been docum ented that various strange item s have been used by crim inals in place of actual w eapons. T hese item s include an egg, a bow ling ball,