When an eyewitness suffers an impairment of memory for a criminal's face because the criminal used a weapon during the commission of the crime, this impairment is called the weapon focus effect. Literature provides two explanations for how this effect arises: some implicate the narrowing of attentional cues to the weapon during the commission of a crime because arousal of the victim increases, while others claim that the weapon is merely a novel object in most everyday contexts, and novel objects demand more attention than contextually appropriate ones. The current study employed a simulated crime paradigm taking place in a bar where a criminal brandished either a drinking glass (normal object), a rubber chicken (novel object), or a gun (weapon). Timing of the object's presentation was also manipulated such that it was visible before, after, or during the time when the culprit's face was visible. Target-present and target-absent lineups, cued-recall questions, and retrospective identification confidence questions were administered. The weapon focus effect was found on diagnosticity ratios of lineup selections when objects were presented after the face such that the glass was more diagnostic of suspect guilt than the gun or the chicken. When objects were presented in tandem with the face, the glass was only more diagnostic of guilt than the gun. Eyewitness confidence suffered most when the chicken was seen. Implications for current theories of weapon focus and public policy are discussed.
","abstract_html":"<p>When an eyewitness suffers an impairment of memory for a criminal's face because the criminal used a weapon during the commission of the crime, this impairment is called the weapon focus effect. Literature provides two explanations for how this effect arises: some implicate the narrowing of attentional cues to the weapon during the commission of a crime because arousal of the victim increases, while others claim that the weapon is merely a novel object in most everyday contexts, and novel objects demand more attention than contextually appropriate ones. The current study employed a simulated crime paradigm taking place in a bar where a criminal brandished either a drinking glass (normal object), a rubber chicken (novel object), or a gun (weapon). Timing of the object's presentation was also manipulated such that it was visible before, after, or during the time when the culprit's face was visible. Target-present and target-absent lineups, cued-recall questions, and retrospective identification confidence questions were administered. The weapon focus effect was found on diagnosticity ratios of lineup selections when objects were presented after the face such that the glass was more diagnostic of suspect guilt than the gun or the chicken. When objects were presented in tandem with the face, the glass was only more diagnostic of guilt than the gun. Eyewitness confidence suffered most when the chicken was seen. Implications for current theories of weapon focus and public policy are discussed.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Erickson, William Blake"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts in Psychology (MA)","degree_level":"Thesis","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Feldner, Matthew T.","Beike, Denise R."],"advisors":["Lampinen, James M."],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2012,"date_issued":"2012-05-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2012-05-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:00:19Z","subjects":["Psychology","Arousal","Eyewitness","Focus","Law","Memory","Weapon","Cognition and Perception","Cognitive Psychology"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/363","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Feldner, Matthew T.","Beike, Denise R."]},{"key":"dc:contributor.advisor","label":"Advisor","values":["Lampinen, James M."]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Erickson, William Blake"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2012"]},{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2017-09-29T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts in Psychology (MA)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Psychology","Arousal","Eyewitness","Focus","Law","Memory","Weapon","Cognition and Perception","Cognitive Psychology"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/363"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["When an eyewitness suffers an impairment of memory for a criminal's face because the criminal used a weapon during the commission of the crime, this impairment is called the weapon focus effect. Literature provides two explanations for how this effect arises: some implicate the narrowing of attentional cues to the weapon during the commission of a crime because arousal of the victim increases, while others claim that the weapon is merely a novel object in most everyday contexts, and novel objects demand more attention than contextually appropriate ones. The current study employed a simulated crime paradigm taking place in a bar where a criminal brandished either a drinking glass (normal object), a rubber chicken (novel object), or a gun (weapon). Timing of the object's presentation was also manipulated such that it was visible before, after, or during the time when the culprit's face was visible. Target-present and target-absent lineups, cued-recall questions, and retrospective identification confidence questions were administered. The weapon focus effect was found on diagnosticity ratios of lineup selections when objects were presented after the face such that the glass was more diagnostic of suspect guilt than the gun or the chicken. When objects were presented in tandem with the face, the glass was only more diagnostic of guilt than the gun. Eyewitness confidence suffered most when the chicken was seen. Implications for current theories of weapon focus and public policy are discussed.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Temporal Shifts in Weapon Focus: Comparing Retrograde and Anterograde Effects"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Feldner, Matthew T.","Beike, Denise R."],"dc:contributor.advisor":["Lampinen, James M."],"dc:creator":["Erickson, William Blake"],"dc:date":["2012"],"dc:date.available":["2017-09-29T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["When an eyewitness suffers an impairment of memory for a criminal's face because the criminal used a weapon during the commission of the crime, this impairment is called the weapon focus effect. Literature provides two explanations for how this effect arises: some implicate the narrowing of attentional cues to the weapon during the commission of a crime because arousal of the victim increases, while others claim that the weapon is merely a novel object in most everyday contexts, and novel objects demand more attention than contextually appropriate ones. The current study employed a simulated crime paradigm taking place in a bar where a criminal brandished either a drinking glass (normal object), a rubber chicken (novel object), or a gun (weapon). Timing of the object's presentation was also manipulated such that it was visible before, after, or during the time when the culprit's face was visible. Target-present and target-absent lineups, cued-recall questions, and retrospective identification confidence questions were administered. The weapon focus effect was found on diagnosticity ratios of lineup selections when objects were presented after the face such that the glass was more diagnostic of suspect guilt than the gun or the chicken. When objects were presented in tandem with the face, the glass was only more diagnostic of guilt than the gun. Eyewitness confidence suffered most when the chicken was seen. Implications for current theories of weapon focus and public policy are discussed.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://scholarworks.uark.edu/etd/363"],"dc:subject":["Psychology","Arousal","Eyewitness","Focus","Law","Memory","Weapon","Cognition and Perception","Cognitive Psychology"],"dc:title":["Temporal Shifts in Weapon Focus: Comparing Retrograde and Anterograde Effects"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts in Psychology (MA)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T01:00:19Z"}