Gun-Toting Increases Bias to See Guns Toted

A person holding a gun may be more likely to think they see a weapon being carried by another. Christopher Intagliata reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

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.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


—Christopher Intagliata

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe