Listen to this PodcastMore 60-Second Science
A quarter of all police shootings involve unarmed suspects. In a few recent cases, officers mistook cell phones and hairbrushes for guns, and shot and killed the victims. Now a study may explain—in part—these errors. Researchers found that when a person holds a gun, they’re more likely to think they see a weapon being carried by another. That study is in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. [Jessica K. Witt & James R. Brockmole, "Action Alters Object Identification: Wielding a Gun Increases the Bias to See Guns," link to come]
Researchers had volunteers hold a Wii handgun or a foam ball. Then they flashed images of people either holding guns or objects like soda cans, and asked volunteers to decide if they'd seen a weapon. The subjects holding the Wii gun were more likely to mistakenly see a gun in the hands of their onscreen "foe." When researchers varied the experiment, subjects holding shoes were more likely to see shoes onscreen.
The reason, the authors say, is that just planning to possibly use an object—like a pistol—might prime the brain for spotting that object. Which might be a great advantage for quickly noting when a suspect is indeed armed. But can cause tragic overreactions when there’s really no gun in sight.
—Christopher Intagliata
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]
See what we're tweeting about
6 Comments
Add Comment"The reason, the authors say, is that just planning to possibly use an object—like a pistol—might prime the brain for spotting that object. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEr ... doesn't the shoe experiment suggest that this is not at all the case? Holding a shoe hardly constitutes "planning to use" a shoe!
In the meantime, when will we ever see a SA article again that doesn't contain a raft of 'might', 'may', 'perhaps', 'could' and 'possibly'? Is it any wonder that science has such a poor image?
My favorite thing about science is that it doesn't jump to conclusions without evidence, yet isn't afraid to discuss possibilities. Thus the mights and mays.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy worst students are the book-smart ones that think science is some invincible monolith of correctness, rather than an enjoyable and fruitful inquiry.
My father would call this bull pockey and he'd be correct. I started concealed carry of a handgun after a upstanding citizen pointed one at my head, the police took 24 hrs to cover the 100yds to his pawn shop to investigate. The last thing I want to see in another person's hand is a gun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisApparently you're seeing this as a direct argument against carrying a handgun. Does carrying make you more likely to see arguments that aren't there?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would read this as a word of warning, not a condemnation. And before the inevitable "just a tree-hugging liberal" response, I am currently waiting on my CCW to arrive in the mail. I just wanted to point out that there are good arguments for for carrying and for not carrying. If there weren't, it wouldn't be a point for discussion at all. Disregarding warnings based on established theories on the function of the brain (see this article on priming, http://lesswrong.com/lw/k3/priming_and_contamination/) is unproductive at best and dangerous at worst.
It seems I remember something about correlation not equaling causation. Its just as logical to infer that people carry guns because they are already aware that others are carrying. Perhaps more so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy best students are those who pleasure me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this