Armed and attentive: Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing

Is a knife the same as a plunger? Comparing the attentional effects of weapons and non-threatening unusual objects in dynamic scenes

Observers' memory for a person's appearance can be compromised by the presence of a weapon, a phenomenon known as the weapon-focus effect (WFE). According to the unusual-item hypothesis, attention shifts from the perpetrator to the weapon because a weapon is an unusual object in many contexts. To test this assumption, we monitored participants' eye movements while they watched a mock-crime video. The video was presented with sound and featured a female perpetrator holding either a weapon, a non-threatening unusual object, or a neutral object. Contrary to the predictions of current theories, there were no significant differences in total viewing times for the three objects. For the perpetrator, total viewing time was reduced when she held the non-threatening unusual object, but not when she held the weapon. However, weapon presence led to an attentional shift from the perpetrator's face toward her body. Detailed time-course analyses revealed that the effects of object type were more pronounced during early scene viewing. Thus, our results do not support the idea of extended attentional shifts from the perpetrator toward the unusual objects, but instead suggest more complex attentional effects. Contrary to previous research, memory for the perpetrator's appearance was not affected by object type. Thus, there was no WFE. An additional online experiment using the same videos and methodology produced a WFE, but this effect disappeared when the videos were presented without sound.

Revisiting the role of attention in the "weapon focus effect": Do weapons draw gaze away from the perpetrator under naturalistic viewing conditions?

The presence of a weapon in a scene has been found to attract observers' attention and to impair their memory of the person holding the weapon. Here, we examined the role of attention in this weapon focus effect (WFE) under different viewing conditions. German participants viewed stimuli in which a man committed a robbery while holding a gun or a cell phone. The stimuli were based on material used in a recent U.S. study reporting large memory effects. Recording eye movements allowed us to test whether observers' attention in the gun condition shifted away from the perpetrator towards the gun, compared with the phone condition. When using videos (Experiment 1), weapon presence did not appear to modulate the viewing time for the perpetrator, whereas the evidence concerning the critical object remained inconclusive. When using slide shows (Experiment 2), the gun attracted more gaze than the phone, replicating previous research. However, the attentional shift towards the weapon did not come at a cost of viewing time on the perpetrator. In both experiments, observers focused their attention predominantly on the depicted people and much less on the gun or phone. The presence of a weapon did not cause participants to recall fewer details about the perpetrator's appearance in either experiment. This null effect was replicated in an online study using the original videos and testing more participants. The results seem at odds with the attention-shift explanation of the WFE. Moreover, the results indicate that the WFE is not a universal phenomenon.

Not according to plan: Cognitive failures in marksmanship due to effects of expertise, unknown environments, and the likelihood of shooting unintended targets

Shooting errors have multi-faceted causes with contributing factors that include sensorimotor activity and cognitive failures. Empirical investigations often assess mental errors through threat identification, yet other cognitive failures could contribute to poor outcomes. The current study explored several possible sources of cognitive failures unrelated to threat identification with live fire exercises. Experiment 1 examined a national shooting competition to compare marksmanship accuracy, expertise, and planning in the likelihood of hitting no-shoot or unintended targets. Experts demonstrated an inverse speed/accuracy trade-off and fired upon fewer no-shoot targets than lesser skilled shooters, yet overall, greater opportunity to plan produced more no-shoot errors, thereby demonstrating an increase in cognitive errors. Experiment 2 replicated and extended this finding under conditions accounting for target type, location, and number. These findings further dissociate the roles of marksmanship and cognition in shooting errors while suggesting that marksmanship evaluations should be re-designed to better incorporate cognitive variables.

How speed impacts threat assessment in lethal force decisions

Despite the importance of being both fast and accurate in lethal force decisions, there is little empirical evidence to identify how speed impacts threat-related decisions and perception. Two experiments used speeded and unspeeded manipulations to determine how the speed imperative impacted threat assessments. Experiment 1 used drift diffusion modeling to quantify decision parameters, including rate of information processing, decision threshold, bias, and non-decisional processes. Speeded conditions reduced the information threshold needed to make decisions and shortened non-decisional processes, yet this manipulation had no impact on the rate of information processing or starting bias. Experiment 2 explored perceptual differences in threat assessment. Participants confidently made threat assessments despite only 30 ms exposure to stimuli with little impact on their subjective threat ratings based on exposure duration. Taken together, these results document the influence of speed on decision-making parameters of threat assessments while demonstrating little impact on threat perception.

Perception Over Personality in Lethal Force: Aggression, Impulsivity, and Big Five Traits in Threat Assessments and Behavioral Responses due to Weapon Presence and Posture

The use of lethal force is a combination of threat perception and individual judgment that sometimes warrants a behavioral response. This simplified description implicates perceptual factors and individual differences in lethal force decision making, which ongoing research continues to address. However, personality-based factors have been less explored as to how they might affect either threat perception or behavioral responses in a lethal force decision. The current investigation examined multiple personality traits with the potential to influence lethal force decision making, including aggression, impulsivity, and the Big Five traits. These measures were compared to threat perception and behavioral responses made to a variety of lethal force stimuli broadly categorized as clear threats, ambiguous threats, and clear nonthreats. Samples were recruited from combat-trained infantry, military recruits, and the civilian community to control for prior lethal force training. Although there was a strong omnibus relationship between threat perception and the likelihood of a behavioral response, neither military training nor personality differences had any impact on threat perception or a binary (e.g., shoot/don't-shoot) behavioral response. Therefore, we conclude that perception dominates personality in lethal force decision making when the threat assessment decision is limited to factors such as weapon presence or posture rather than emotion.

Measuring Lethal Force Performance in the Lab: The Effects of Simulator Realism and Participant Experience

OBJECTIVE

The goal of the current study was to compare two types of shooting simulators to determine which is best suited for assessing different aspects of lethal force performance.

BACKGROUND

Military and law enforcement personnel are often required to make decisions regarding the use of lethal force. A critical goal of both training and research endeavors surrounding lethal force is to find ways to simulate lethal force encounters to better understand behavior in those scenarios.

METHOD

Participants of varying degrees of experience completed both marksmanship and shoot/don't shoot scenarios on both a video game and a military-grade shooting simulator. Using signal detection theory, we assessed sensitivity as a measure of lethal force performance overall. We used hit rate to assess shooting accuracy and false alarm rate to assess decision making.

RESULTS

Results demonstrated that performance was correlated across simulators. Results supported the notion that shooting accuracy and decision making are independent components of performance. Individuals with firearms expertise outperformed novices on the military-grade simulator, but only with respect to shooting accuracy, not unintended casualties. Individuals with video game experience outperformed novices in the video game simulator, but again only on shooting accuracy.

CONCLUSION

Experience played a crucial role in the assessment of shooting accuracy on a given simulator platform; decision-making performance remained unaffected by experience level or type of simulator.

APPLICATION

We recommend that in expert populations or when assessing shooting accuracy, a military-grade shooting simulator be used. However, with a novice population and/or when interested in decision making in lethal force, a video game simulator is appropriate.

The role of inhibitory control in shoot/don't-shoot decisions

Previous work has demonstrated a link between cognitive abilities, specifically inhibitory control and lethal force decision-making performance. However, many previously used approaches to simulating shoot/don't shoot scenarios have lacked ecological validity. There is a need to investigate how inhibitory control impacts shoot/don't decisions using realistic simulations to better translate the findings to military and law enforcement settings. This study used multiple cognitive control tasks incorporating discrete judgements in go/no-go and stop signal tasks as well as subjective judgements in go/no-go tasks with both colour stimuli and emotional faces. These combined tasks provided a comprehensive evaluation of inhibitory control abilities. To ensure ecological validity in shooting performance, existing military training scenarios incorporated realistic weaponry and aiming behaviours across different shoot/don't-shoot simulations. The inhibitory control battery identified five principal components from the various tasks, including: stopping ability, response speed, emotion detection, colour detection, and emotional biases. These principal inhibitory control components were entered into hierarchical linear regressions with the dependent variables of unintended casualties inflicted and lethal rounds fired, respectively. Stopping ability better predicted the likelihood of inflicting an unintended casualty, whereas response speed better predicted the number of lethal rounds fired. These regression models included baseline metrics of marksmanship and shots fired, which supports a role for inhibitory control above and beyond basic shooting abilities or strategy. These collective findings provide mechanistic support for the relationship between inhibitory control and errors in shoot/don't-shoot decision-making while using realistic military training scenarios.

How unintentional cues can bias threat assessments during shoot/don't-shoot simulations

OBJECTIVE

Identify whether contextual information may unintentionally alter decision-making during lethal force training.

BACKGROUND

Lethal force decisions inherently involve a threat assessment, where an individual learns to identify a threat and use force commensurate to the situation. This decision is ultimately subject to numerous cognitive influences, particularly during training where artificial factors may bias decision-making.

METHOD

Participants made threat assessments for tasks that presented hostile stimuli (pointing guns) and non-hostile stimuli (holding cell phones). Experiment 1 identified issues in target design by applying scoring rings as cues to targets, whereas Experiment 2 used bullet holes to assess cues due to target reuse. Experiment 3 applied these cues equally to hostile and non-hostile stimuli to prevent a predictive relationship from forming.

RESULTS

Significant cueing effects were observed in both Experiments 1 and 2. For Experiment 3, response times were not impacted by the invalid cues as participants could no longer reliably use the cue to distinguish between hostile and non-hostile stimuli.

CONCLUSION

Stimulus-related factors can unintentionally create predictive relationships during lethal force training. These predictive factors are problematic because they allow participants to make threat assessments during training in a way that would never be realistic in the field.

APPLICATION

Modifications should be made to hostile and non-hostile targets in equal measure to avoid creating an unintentionally predictive relationship that identifies hostile targets. In practice, scoring rings and bullet holes should be added to non-hostile stimuli to better parallel hostile stimuli.

Perception during use of force and the likelihood of firing upon an unarmed person

Stress can impact perception, especially during use-of-force. Research efforts can thus advance both theory and practice by examining how perception during use-of-force might drive behavior. The current study explored the relationship between perceptual judgments and performance during novel close-combat training. Analyses included perceptual judgments from close-combat assessments conducted pre-training and post-training that required realistic use-of-force decisions in addition to an artificially construed stress-inoculation event used as a training exercise. Participants demonstrated significant reductions in situational awareness while under direct fire, which correlated to increased physiological stress. The initial likelihood of firing upon an unarmed person predicted the perceptual shortcomings of later stress-inoculation training. Subsequently, likelihood of firing upon an unarmed person was reduced following the stress-inoculation training. These preliminary findings have several implications for low or zero-cost solutions that might help trainers identify individuals who are underprepared for field responsibilities.

When the response does not match the threat: The relationship between threat assessment and behavioural response in ambiguous lethal force decision-making

Deciding when to use lethal force inherently depends on assessing threat, a process that itself incorporates numerous perceptual factors. This study assessed this relationship between perception-based threat assessment and behaviour-based threat response. Specifically, participants completed multiple tasks designed to elicit either a threat rating (e.g., perception-informed threat assessment) or a binary behavioural response (e.g., shoot/don't-shoot). Actor posture and weapon presence significantly affected the threat assessment, which was an extremely powerful omnibus predictor of threat response. However, for ambiguous threat stimuli, perceived threat became a poor predictor for threat response relative to the omnibus test. Participants appeared to adopt additional rules to inform behaviour independent of the threat assessment when faced with an ambiguous situation. These results demonstrate an intriguing disparity between subjective threat assessment and the behavioural response to use force that does not apply well to ambiguous cases or adequately explain errors in lethal force decisions.

Protective Gun Ownership as a Coping Mechanism

Firearms are one of the central flashpoints in American life, and yet the motivations underlying their ownership have been generally understudied by psychologists. In this article, I review work from across the social sciences to model the psychological utility that people get from gun ownership. I propose the coping model of protective gun ownership and argue that those who own their weapon for protection are using their gun symbolically as an aid to manage psychological threats-to their safety, control, and sense of belongingness-that come from their belief that the world is a dangerous place and that society will not keep them safe. I discuss the ramifications of this coping strategy and present a research agenda for exploring this framework.

Violence reduces attention to faces and draws attention to points of contact

Although violence is a frequently researched topic, little is known about how different social features influence information gathering from violent interactions. Regions of an interaction that provide contextual information should receive more attention. We predicted the most informative features of a violent social interaction would be faces, points of contact, and objects being held. To test this, we tracked the eyes of 90 participants as they viewed images of social interactions that varied with respect to violence. When viewing violent interactions, participants attended significantly less to faces and significantly more to points of contact. Moreover, first-fixation analysis suggests that some of these biases are present from the beginning of scene-viewing. These findings are the first to demonstrate the visual relevance of faces and contact points in gathering information from violent social interactions. These results also question the attentional dominance of faces in active social scenes, highlighting the importance of using a variety of stimuli and contexts in social cognition research.

The weapon focus effect is weaker with Black versus White male perpetrators

We compared the influence of a weapon's presence on eyewitnesses' memory for a White versus a Black male perpetrator. Prior data indicate that unusual objects in visual scenes attract attention and that a weapon's effect depends on how unusual it seems within the context in which it appears. Therefore, given the stereotype linking Black men and weapons, we predicted a weaker weapon focus effect with the Black perpetrator. The results of Experiment 1 supported this hypothesis using White and Black witnesses. Moreover, in Experiment 2 the weapon focus effect became nonsignificant when the Black perpetrator wore a style of clothing that is strongly associated with Black men. We propose that observing an armed Black perpetrator automatically activates a stereotype linking Black men with weapons and crime, which in turn reduces the perceived unusualness of the weapon and thus its ability to attract attention.

A different kind of weapon focus: simulated training with ballistic weapons reduces change blindness

Attentional allocation is flexibly altered by action-related priorities. Given that tools - and specifically weapons - can affect attentional allocation, we asked whether training with a weapon or holding a weapon during search would affect change detection. In three experiments, participants searched for changes to agents, shootable objects, or environments in the popular flicker paradigm. Participants trained with a simulated weapon or watched a video from the same training perspective and then searched for changes while holding a weapon or a control object. Results show an effect of training, highlighting the importance of sensorimotor experience for the action-relevant allocation of attention, and a possible interaction between training and the object held during search. Simulated training with ballistic weapons reduces change blindness. This result has implications for the interaction between tool use and attentional allocation.

Cognitive Training Can Reduce Civilian Casualties in a Simulated Shooting Environment

Shooting a firearm involves a complex series of cognitive abilities. For example, locating an item or a person of interest requires visual search, and firing the weapon (or withholding a trigger squeeze) involves response execution (or inhibition). The present study used a simulated shooting environment to establish a relationship between a particular cognitive ability and a critical shooting error—response inhibition and firing on civilians, respectively. Individual-difference measures demonstrated, perhaps counterintuitively, that simulated civilian casualties were not related to motor impulsivity (i.e., an itchy trigger finger) but rather to an individual’s cognitive ability to withhold an already initiated response (i.e., an itchy brain). Furthermore, active-response-inhibition training reduced simulated civilian casualties, which revealed a causal relationship. This study therefore illustrates the potential of using cognitive training to possibly improve shooting performance, which might ultimately provide insight for military and law-enforcement personnel.

Knowing where to draw the line: perceptual differences between risk-takers and non-risk-takers

There are a variety of reasons someone might engage in risky behaviors, such as perceived invulnerability to harm or a belief that negative outcomes are more likely for others than for oneself. However, these risk-taking biases are often measured at a decision-making level or from the developmental perspective. Here we assessed whether or not risk-taking influenced perceptual judgments associated with risk. Participants were provided an objective task to measure individual differences in the perception of physical dimensions (i.e., actual size of a balloon) versus the perception of risk (i.e., size at which the balloon would explode). Our results show that specific differences in risk-taking personalities produce specific differences in perceptual judgments about risk, but do not affect perception of the actual dimensions. Thus, risk-takers differ from non-risk-takers in the perceptual estimations they make about risks, and therefore may be more likely to engage in dangerous or uncertain behaviors because they perceive risks differently.