Editing Weapon focus (section)

==Causes of weapon focus==

A leading explanation for a cause of weapon focus is the unusualness of the situation, being a witness to a crime. Since the initial research conducted by Johnson and Scott (1976) and Loftus et al. (1987), others have demonstrated a similar effect using unusual objects rather than weapons. These findings are described as the "Unusual Item Hypothesis." This effect is seen when an object does not fit with the [[Schema (psychology)|schema]] of the situation.  Attention is then drawn to the out-of-place object and less attention is paid to other objects in the scene making recalling these other objects more difficult. This effect was observed in Toronto in 1997 when a robber entered a coffee shop and demanded money while threatening to strangle a goose he was holding if he did not receive the money.  Meanwhile, the customers were too focused on the strangeness of a goose in the coffee shop to observe any details about the perpetrator himself.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Fawcett|first1=Jonathan M.|last2=Russell|first2=Emily J.|last3=Peace|first3=Kristine A.|last4=Christie|first4=John|date=2013-01-01|title=Of guns and geese: a meta-analytic review of the 'weapon focus' literature|journal=Psychology, Crime & Law|volume=19|issue=1|pages=35–66|doi=10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325|s2cid=143826250 |issn=1068-316X}}</ref>  This effect has also been observed in the lab. For example, Pickel (1998) demonstrated an effect comparable to weapon focus using a video in which a man approached a cashier and presented a whole raw chicken or miniature [[Pillsbury Dough Boy]] instead of an expected item such as a wallet. From her finding, Pickel (1998) argued that the weapon focus arose from the unusual nature of the object in the relation to the context in which it was presented. Another study by Mansour et. al (2018) presented subjects with a video of a crime scene. From their findings, subjects remembered more about a scene when a crime was committed with a binder, which represented an ordinary object, compared to unusual objects such as a gun or knife.<ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Mansour |first1=Jamal K. |last2=Hamilton |first2=Claire M. |last3=Gibson |first3=Matthew T. |date=November 2019 |title=Understanding the weapon focus effect: The role of threat, unusualness, exposure duration, and scene complexity |url=https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acp.3515 |journal=Applied Cognitive Psychology |language=en |volume=33 |issue=6 |pages=991–1007 |doi=10.1002/acp.3515 |s2cid=149900131 |issn=0888-4080}}</ref> This was also seen in a study done in 2013 which examined weapon focus, and determined whether or not a gun automatically engages visual attention. There were two experiments that were conducted, which included targets that either depicted a gun, or another object. The conclusion of this experiment was that images of a gun did not engage attention more than that of images of other objects, including a tomato and a pocket watch. It was discovered that in order for an object to be viewed as threatening, the environment and context of the situation is of utmost importance. The context of the situation will ultimately determine whether or not weapon focus is existent in an instance of eyewitness testimony. <ref>{{Cite journal |last1=Flowe |first1=Heather D. |last2=Hope |first2=Lorraine |last3=Hillstrom |first3=Anne P. |date=2013-12-11 |title=Oculomotor Examination of the Weapon Focus Effect: Does a Gun Automatically Engage Visual Attention? |journal=PLOS ONE |language=en |volume=8 |issue=12 |pages=e81011 |doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0081011 |issn=1932-6203 |pmc=3859504 |pmid=24349028 |bibcode=2013PLoSO...881011F |doi-access=free }}</ref> Furthermore, in her article, Kerri L. Pickel determined that the peculiarity of an object is a reason for the weapon focus effect. Being unusual attracts more attention to the weapon, but the object does not necessarily have to be a weapon to produce this effect.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Pickel |first=Kerri L. |date=1999-06-01 |title=The Influence of Context on the "Weapon Focus" Effect |url=https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022356431375 |journal=Law and Human Behavior |language=en |volume=23 |issue=3 |pages=299–311 |doi=10.1023/A:1022356431375 |s2cid=145232502 |issn=1573-661X|url-access=subscription }}</ref> This contributes to the idea that the context of the situation has more importance than the actual weapon a victim witnesses. The mere unusual aspect of a situation with a foreign object is enough to elicit the weapon focus response. 

In their 2013 meta-analysis, Fawcett et al. (2013) presented the issues surrounding the arousal/threat hypothesis. This is one of the oldest explanations connected to the weapon focus phenomenon, and relies on the [[Yerkes–Dodson law|Yerkes-Dodson law]] that links arousal and performance;<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Yerkes|first1=Robert M.|last2=Dodson|first2=John D.|date=1908|title=The relation of strength of stimulus to rapidity of habit-formation|journal=Journal of Comparative Neurology and Psychology|language=en|volume=18|issue=5|pages=459–482|doi=10.1002/cne.920180503|issn=1550-7149|url=https://zenodo.org/record/1426769}}</ref> emotionally arousing states, such as stress, can enhance performance up to a point, but after this there are detrimental impacts on cognitive functions, like memory and learning. The amygdala, a brain region located near the center of the brain, is responsible for fear processing and emotional response to both negative and positive stimuli. Research by Sander and Grafman has suggested that the [[amygdala]] serves to not only process fear-inducing stimuli but also to determine which information is relevant for encoding.<ref>{{Citation|title=Amygdala|date=2020-04-20|url=https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amygdala&oldid=952025559|work=Wikipedia|language=en|access-date=2020-04-24}}</ref> This suggests that the amygdala plays a role in determining what to pay attention to during the crime.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Sander|first1=David|last2=Grafman|first2=Jordan|last3=Zalla|first3=Tiziana|date=2003|title=The human amygdala: an evolved system for relevance detection|journal=Reviews in the Neurosciences|volume=14|issue=4|pages=303–316|doi=10.1515/revneuro.2003.14.4.303|issn=0334-1763|pmid=14640318|s2cid=24811267 }}</ref>  In situations where a weapon is present, witnesses tend to focus on the object of arousal and miss peripheral details, like the identity of the perpetrator. This explanation relies on Easterbrook's (1959) theory that stress causes a reduction in mental resources, thus the range of cues a subject can attend to in this situation will be significantly reduced.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Easterbrook|first=J. A.|date=1959|title=The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior.|journal=Psychological Review|volume=66|issue=3|pages=183–201|doi=10.1037/h0047707|pmid=13658305|issn=1939-1471}}</ref> In a dangerous situation where a weapon is present, survival becomes the most important facets and peripheral information is overlooked. This means that the witness has a heightened memory for the weapon, but may struggle to recall other information. Over time, research into the role of anxiety on weapon focus has produced inconsistent findings, causing researchers to look at alternative causes of the phenomenon. The relative contributions of both arousal and unusualness remain one of the primary theoretical issues in this literature, with some authors arguing for a contribution of both.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Pickel|first=Kerri|year=1998|title=Unusualness and threat as possible causes of "weapon focus"|journal=Memory|volume=6|issue=3|pages=277–295|doi=10.1080/741942361|pmid=9709443}}</ref>

Another potential cause of weapon focus is the "automatic capture" explanation.  This suggests that the [[attention]] paid to a weapon is automatic and unintentional.  Studies have been performed that show that even if a subject is asked to ignore specific [[stimulus (physiology)|stimuli]] they are unable to, thus indicating an automatic response.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Remington|first1=Roger W.|last2=Johnston|first2=James C.|last3=Yantis|first3=Steven|title=Involuntary attentional capture by abrupt onsets|journal=Perception & Psychophysics|year=1992| volume=51 | issue = 3|pages=279–290|url= http://pbs.jhu.edu/research/Yantis/publications/PDF/Johnston-etal-P-P-1992.pdf|doi=10.3758/bf03212254|pmid=1561053|doi-access=free}}</ref>  Remington et al. (1992) conclude that a participant might intend to ignore an event, but their attention is often automatically captured by it - as such, an eyewitness may not intend to solely focus on a weapon, but if their diversion of attention to it cannot be controlled, they possess little ability to ignore it. Yantis and Jonides (1996) suggest that it makes adaptive sense for humans to divert attention towards new objects, as a new representation has to be created for that object, presenting another explanation for the weapon focus phenomenon. However, they also conclude that attention focus is not automatic and can be directed on command, especially if attention is already focused somewhere specific.  If attention is already focused away from a certain stimulus, then automatic capture is avoidable.<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Yantis|first1=Steven|last2=Jonides|first2=John|title=Attentional Capture by Abrupt Onsets: New Perceptual Objects or Visual Masking?|journal=Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance|year=1996| volume=22 | issue = 6|pages=1505–1513|url= http://pbs.jhu.edu/research/Yantis/publications/PDF/yantis_jonides_JEPHPP_1996.pdf|doi=10.1037/0096-1523.22.6.1505|pmid=8953232 }}</ref>