ArticleCognitive research: principles and implications2024
Is a knife the same as a plunger? Comparing the attentional effects of weapons and non-threatening unusual objects in dynamic scenes.
Article in Cognitive research: principles and implications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The fundamentals of eye tracking part 6: Working with areas of interest.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Four (and a Half) Preregistered Failures to Replicate the Weapon Focus Effect in Online Samples.Psychology, public policy, and law : an official law review of the University of Arizona College of Law and the University of Miami School of Law · 2025Article
- The fundamentals of eye tracking part 2: From research question to operationalization.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- The fundamentals of eye tracking part 1: The link between theory and research question.Behavior research methods · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.