Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus effect: Does a gun automatically engage visual attention?

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Standard

Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus effect : Does a gun automatically engage visual attention? / Flowe, Heather D.; Hope, Lorraine; Hillstrom, Anne P.

In: PLoS ONE, Vol. 8, No. 12, e81011, 11.12.2013.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Author

Bibtex

@article{80c5e6f3ff8b4beebb299a3591b85739,
title = "Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus effect: Does a gun automatically engage visual attention?",
abstract = "Background: A person is less likely to be accurately remembered if they appear in a visual scene with a gun, a result that has been termed the weapon focus effect (WFE). Explanations of the WFE argue that weapons engage attention because they are unusual and/or threatening, which causes encoding deficits for the other items in the visual scene. Previous WFE research has always embedded the weapon and nonweapon objects within a larger context that provides information about an actor's intention to use the object. As such, it is currently unknown whether a gun automatically engages attention to a greater extent than other objects independent of the context in which it is presented. Method: Reflexive responding to a gun compared to other objects was examined in two experiments. Experiment 1 employed a prosaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked toward a peripheral target, and Experiment 2 employed an antisaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked away from a peripheral target. In both experiments, the peripheral target was a gun or a nonthreatening object (i.e., a tomato or pocket watch). We also controlled how unexpected the targets were and compared saccadic reaction times across types of objects. Results: A gun was not found to differentially engage attention compared to the unexpected object (i.e., a pocket watch). Some evidence was found (Experiment 2) that both the gun and the unexpected object engaged attention to a greater extent compared the expected object (i.e., a tomato). Conclusion: An image of a gun did not engage attention to a larger extent than images of other types of objects (i.e., a pocket watch or tomato). The results suggest that context may be an important determinant of WFE. The extent to which an object is threatening may depend on the larger context in which it is presented. Copyright:",
author = "Flowe, {Heather D.} and Lorraine Hope and Hillstrom, {Anne P.}",
year = "2013",
month = dec,
day = "11",
doi = "10.1371/journal.pone.0081011",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "PLoSONE",
issn = "1932-6203",
publisher = "Public Library of Science (PLOS)",
number = "12",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus effect

T2 - Does a gun automatically engage visual attention?

AU - Flowe, Heather D.

AU - Hope, Lorraine

AU - Hillstrom, Anne P.

PY - 2013/12/11

Y1 - 2013/12/11

N2 - Background: A person is less likely to be accurately remembered if they appear in a visual scene with a gun, a result that has been termed the weapon focus effect (WFE). Explanations of the WFE argue that weapons engage attention because they are unusual and/or threatening, which causes encoding deficits for the other items in the visual scene. Previous WFE research has always embedded the weapon and nonweapon objects within a larger context that provides information about an actor's intention to use the object. As such, it is currently unknown whether a gun automatically engages attention to a greater extent than other objects independent of the context in which it is presented. Method: Reflexive responding to a gun compared to other objects was examined in two experiments. Experiment 1 employed a prosaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked toward a peripheral target, and Experiment 2 employed an antisaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked away from a peripheral target. In both experiments, the peripheral target was a gun or a nonthreatening object (i.e., a tomato or pocket watch). We also controlled how unexpected the targets were and compared saccadic reaction times across types of objects. Results: A gun was not found to differentially engage attention compared to the unexpected object (i.e., a pocket watch). Some evidence was found (Experiment 2) that both the gun and the unexpected object engaged attention to a greater extent compared the expected object (i.e., a tomato). Conclusion: An image of a gun did not engage attention to a larger extent than images of other types of objects (i.e., a pocket watch or tomato). The results suggest that context may be an important determinant of WFE. The extent to which an object is threatening may depend on the larger context in which it is presented. Copyright:

AB - Background: A person is less likely to be accurately remembered if they appear in a visual scene with a gun, a result that has been termed the weapon focus effect (WFE). Explanations of the WFE argue that weapons engage attention because they are unusual and/or threatening, which causes encoding deficits for the other items in the visual scene. Previous WFE research has always embedded the weapon and nonweapon objects within a larger context that provides information about an actor's intention to use the object. As such, it is currently unknown whether a gun automatically engages attention to a greater extent than other objects independent of the context in which it is presented. Method: Reflexive responding to a gun compared to other objects was examined in two experiments. Experiment 1 employed a prosaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked toward a peripheral target, and Experiment 2 employed an antisaccade gap-overlap paradigm, whereby participants looked away from a peripheral target. In both experiments, the peripheral target was a gun or a nonthreatening object (i.e., a tomato or pocket watch). We also controlled how unexpected the targets were and compared saccadic reaction times across types of objects. Results: A gun was not found to differentially engage attention compared to the unexpected object (i.e., a pocket watch). Some evidence was found (Experiment 2) that both the gun and the unexpected object engaged attention to a greater extent compared the expected object (i.e., a tomato). Conclusion: An image of a gun did not engage attention to a larger extent than images of other types of objects (i.e., a pocket watch or tomato). The results suggest that context may be an important determinant of WFE. The extent to which an object is threatening may depend on the larger context in which it is presented. Copyright:

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84892584939&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1371/journal.pone.0081011

DO - 10.1371/journal.pone.0081011

M3 - Article

C2 - 24349028

AN - SCOPUS:84892584939

VL - 8

JO - PLoSONE

JF - PLoSONE

SN - 1932-6203

IS - 12

M1 - e81011

ER -