Effects of Weapon Exposure on Confidence in Weapon Identification

ABSTRACT EFFECTS OF WEAPON EXPOSURE ON CONFIDENCE IN WEAPON IDENTIFICATION

Weapon identification is a common procedure in criminal trials, but has not been investigated scientifically. Much attention has focused on eyewitnesses identifying perpetrators. Exposure to weapons in the media and its effects on cognition has not been a topic of interest. Few studies have investigated weapon identification, level of confidence in identifying weapons, and amount of exposure to weapons in the media. The present study aims to investigate the relationship, if any, among these variables. The archival data of the study were extracted from a larger database and was subjected to a variety of statistical tests for analysis. Multiple regression analysis demonstrates that exposure to weapons in the media significantly predicts the level of confidence in identifying weapons. MANOVA analysis demonstrates a significant relationship between the ability to accurately identify weapons and the level of confidence in weapon identification. An additional MANOVA shows that the ability to accurately identify weapons is significantly associated with exposure to weapons in the media. Results of the study have ramifications in criminal proceedings.

Emanuel Alcala May 2013

EFFECTS OF WEAPON EXPOSURE ON CONFIDENCE IN WEAPON IDENTIFICATION

by Emanuel Alcala

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology in the College of Science and Mathematics California State University, Fresno May 2013 APPROVED For the Department of Psychology:

We, the undersigned, certify that the thesis of the following student meets the required standards of scholarship, format, and style of the university and the student's graduate degree program for the awarding of the master's degree.

Emanuel Alcala Thesis Author

Matthew Sharps (Chair) Psychology

Michael Botwin Psychology

Rebecca Slaton Psychology

For the University Graduate Committee:

Dean, Division of Graduate Studies AUTHORIZATION FOR REPRODUCTION OF MASTER’S THESIS

X I grant permission for the reproduction of this thesis in part or in its entirety without further authorization from me, on the condition that the person or agency requesting reproduction absorbs the cost and provides proper acknowledgment of authorship.

Permission to reproduce this thesis in part or in its entirety must be obtained from me.

Signature of thesis author: ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It is with great pleasure that I thank several individuals who made this thesis a reality. First, I would like to thank my graduate mentor, Matthew J. Sharps, who provided endless knowledge, support, and the foundation for this research. Also, I would like to thank Rebecca Slaton and Michael Botwin, who together shared invaluable insight as committee members. I especially would like to thank Constance Jones for never closing her office door on me throughout my graduate career. I have to thank each and every family member Javier, Fernando, Jessica, Mom, and Dad for being the best teachers I ever had. Finally, I would like to thank Nicole and Ada Martinez for which there are no words to describe my gratitude for their contribution.

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

LIST OF TABLES ...... vii

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ...... 1

Identification ...... 1

Confidence ...... 1

Exposure ...... 2

Research Questions ...... 2

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW ...... 3

Weapon Identification ...... 3

Confidence in Weapon Identification ...... 6

Exposure to Weapons ...... 7

Hypotheses ...... 9

CHAPTER 3: METHODS ...... 11

Materials ...... 11

Design and Procedure ...... 12

Measures ...... 13

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS ...... 15

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION ...... 19

REFERENCES ...... 22

APPENDICES ...... 27

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT ...... 28

APPENDIX B: DEBRIEFING FORM ...... 31

APPENDIX C: EYEWITNESS INTERVIEW ...... 34

APPENDIX D: RECALL QUESTIONNAIRE ...... 37 vi vi Page

APPENDIX F: EXPERIMENT DIRECTIONS ...... 42

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Table 1 Multiple Regression Results of the Interest in Weapons, Experience with Weapons, and Exposure to Weapons in the Media as Predictors in the Level of Confidence in Weapon Identification ...... 16 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics of Weapon Identification on Confidence Variables ...... 17 Table 3 Descriptive Statistics of Weapon Identification on Weapon Interest, Experience, and Exposure in the Media ...... 18

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Identification In criminal trials eyewitnesses are often asked to identify weapons that may have been used by the perpetrator. Witnesses may be accurate or inaccurate in their ability to identify weapons. Few studies have investigated one’s ability to identify weapons. Thus, little is known about the accuracy of the eyewitness’s testimony with regards to weapon recognition. Weapon identification, in the context of this study, refers to the recognition of a weapon (e.g., handgun) that was previously viewed in a given crime scene. The current study aims to measure this accuracy along with the ability to identify the color of the weapon.

Confidence Studies have shown that jurors interpret an eyewitness’s confidence as credibility (Brewer & Burke, 2002). In other words, a highly confident witness is perceived as highly accurate in his or her testimony. Earlier data show that confident eyewitnesses are not any more accurate at identifying their perpetrator than unconfident eyewitnesses; concluding that confidence in not a good indicator of accuracy (Bothwell, Deffenbacher, & Brigham, 1987). However, more recent studies illustrate that the relationship between confidence and accuracy is strengthened, dependent on the manner in which the questions are asked (Brigham, 1990). To date, studies have only examined the eyewitness’s level of confidence in the ability to accurately identify a person. The current study examines the confidence-accuracy relationship between the eyewitness’s level of confidence and weapon identification, as well as weapon color. 2 2 Exposure Eyewitnesses have varying degrees of exposure to weapons. For example, some eyewitnesses may be highly interested in weaponry, while others are of low interest. In addition, others have personal experiences with weaponry that may help with weapon recognition. For example, one might be a member of the National Rifle Association and identifying a rifle would be of ease. It could be the case that eyewitnesses only have exposure to weapons through media outlets. Recent studies cite that television continues to be a primary source of entertainment and news (Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007; Gentile & Bushman, 2012). The term “media” refers to television as the main source of exposure. This would include television shows, video games, and movies. Past research has focused on violence in the media as a factor contributing to human aggression (Savage, 2008; Bushman & Anderson, 2009). There is a paucity of data regarding weaponry in the media and its influence on human cognition. However, this study aims to fill this gap. Specifically, the level of interest in weaponry, experience with weaponry, and exposure to weapons in the media is included in the analysis.

Research Questions Question 1: Does weapon interest, experience, or exposure in the media significantly predict confidence in one’s ability to identify weapons? Question 2: Does ability to accurately identify weapons significantly influence one’s level of confidence? Question 3: Does ability to accurately identify weapons significantly influence weapon interest, experience, and exposure in the media?

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW

Weapon Identification More than 291,000 violent crimes involving handguns were committed in the United States in 2004 (Weiner & Hess, 2006). This makes the identification of these handguns an important component of court proceedings as witnesses are often asked to recall and/or identify the weapon he or she encountered. However, the focal point in literature continues to be the identification of the perpetrator (Scheck, Neufeld, Dwyer, & Boatman, 2000; Wells, Memon, & Penrod, 2006), especially of faces (e.g., Sporer, Malpass, & Koehnken, 2001). A growing body of research suggests that, in a given crime scene, an eyewitness will place greater visual attention on a weapon than a suspect (Loftus, Loftus, & Messo, 1987). As a result, the presence of a weapon in a crime scene deteriorates the eyewitness’s memory of facial features (Kramer, Buckhout, & Eugenio, 1990; Pickel, 1999; Steblay, Dysart, & Wells, 1992). The phenomenon termed “weapon focus” addresses inaccurate identification of perpetrators rather than accurate identification of weapons (Pickel, 1998, 1999; Pickel, French, & Betts, 2003). For example, Loftus et al. (1987) investigated eye fixations and event memory in the presence of a weapon. College students viewed two series of slides that depicted a man proceed through the order line of a restaurant. Participants under the experimental conditions saw the man present a handgun from his pocket, and the participants under the control conditions saw the man present a check from his pocket. Participants’ eye movements were tracked and recorded. Results demonstrate that under experimental conditions people are highly unsuccessful in identifying suspects. Interestingly, eye fixation on the weapon is held longer than that of the check book, but recalling details about the weapon are no better than 4 4 that on the check book. In essence, staring at the weapon longer did not enhance one’s ability recall details about the weapon. Most pertinent to the present study is research conducted by Sharps, Barber, Stahl, and Villegas (2003) on the capability to accurately recognize weapons. Participants were asked to recall and identify weapons that were previously viewed minutes before recollection. The stimuli were presented under optimal laboratory lighting conditions, yet accuracy in identifying weapons was less than 50%. For example, only 15 of the 41 respondents accurately identified a semi-automatic handgun. Although revolvers (e.g., Smith & Wesson) were better recognized than semi-automatics, they were recognized only 43% of the time. Because respondents viewed images in a laboratory setting it is expected that the average person would perform worse in a real-life scenario. In a real-life scenario features of a weapon may be occluded by a hand, lack of lighting, or minimal exposure time. It is expected that eyewitnesses are less than 50% accurate in their identification of weapons (Sharps et al., 2003). It is important to note that there are no studies that investigate an eyewitness’s accuracy in identifying the color of a weapon. A study conducted by Villegas, Sharps, Satterthwaite, and Chisholm (2005) investigated the accuracy of eyewitnesses in identifying vehicle model and color. The researchers manipulated the vehicle model and color to evaluate which characteristic contributed more to eyewitness error upon recollection. The results show that 23% of respondents accurately match the color and model of the target vehicle. Seventeen percent of respondents accurately identify the color, but not the model, and 9% of respondents accurately identify the model, but not the color. Villegas et al. (2005) conclude that the model of the vehicle is more difficult to recall than the vehicle’s color. 5 5

The types of eyewitness errors described above are expected. It was demonstrated over 80 years ago that memory is not the static video-like recording of reality once believed (Bartlett, 1932). In fact, memories become reconfigured in three directions. First, memories become shorter, more abbreviated. Second, details are lost, forming a gist of the event. Finally, personal belief can alter memory significantly in both visual and verbal realms. A theoretical framework termed “Gestalt/Feature-Intensive Processing” can explain the phenomena described by Bartlett (1932) within the realm of eyewitness testimony (Sharps, 2002; Sharps & Nunes, 2003). Individuals commonly encode memory in a “gestalt” manner, with little attention paid to details. Only the gist of a given situation is encapsulated into memory. Mental processing fails to capture the “feature-intensive” items of the event and reconfiguration takes place. For example, a revolver is a type of handgun with a unique feature, the cylinder, which contains bullets; whereas a pistol’s bullet chamber is integral with the barrel and does not have a cylinder. In a courtroom, an eyewitness may mistakenly identify the weapon as a pistol rather than the revolver when memories are reconfigured and “feature-intensive” items are lost. In the previous example, the specific feature of the revolver (the cylinder) was not appropriately stored into memory lending itself susceptible to reconfiguration. The general picture of a handgun was stored into the eyewitness’s memory. From the witnesses’ perspective, the identified pistol is the extent of the reconfigured memory as it fits the gist of the situation. As Bartlett (1932) demonstrated, elaboration from the eyewitness may be unintentionally fabricated. 6 6 Confidence in Weapon Identification Research shows that jurors in a courtroom perceive confident eyewitnesses as highly credible (Penrod & Cutler, 1995). However, the literature is unclear on the true relationship between confidence and accuracy. Bothwell et al. (1987) conducted a meta-analysis of 35 staged-event crime scene in an attempt to examine the Confidence-Accuracy relationship. They found an overall relationship between confidence and accuracy of r = .25, with a 95% confidence interval of .08 to .42, thus verifying that confidence should not be used as a systematic indicator of accuracy. The following study shows that the Confidence-Accuracy relationship can be strengthened. For example, Brigham (1990) tested the hypothesis that facial distinctiveness may enhance the Confidence-Accuracy relationship. Participants were exposed to distinctive, unusual faces, as opposed to more prototypical faces, and to attractive versus unattractive faces. The results were consistent with the hypothesis: the Confidence-Accuracy relationship was higher when the target faces were distinctive rather than prototypical, and unattractive, rather than attractive. Simply, individuals are more accurate and confident in identifying unusual faces and unattractive faces. Although this study does not focus on weapon identification, it does illustrate that the Confidence-Accuracy relationship can be strengthened depending on the scenario (Luus & Wells, 1994; Shaw III & McClure, 1996; Wells, Ferguson, & Lindsay, 1981). Recognition tests in simulated crime scenes studies result in a lower Shaw Confidence-Accuracy relationship. That is, those who are highly confident are not any more accurate than those who are less confident. In contrast, recall tests in simulated crime scenes results in a higher Confidence-Accuracy relationship, meaning more confident individuals are more accurate than less confident 7 7 individuals. For example, Robinson and Johnson (1996) conducted an experiment where participants who viewed a simulated crime scene were asked to recall (from memory) or recognize (from a list) details of the video clip. The experimenters found a higher Confidence-Accuracy relationship when details were recalled rather than when recognized by forced-choice. The authors suggest that the amount of effort spent on retrieving information is positively related to confidence. The confident witness is perceived as more accurate than the less confident witness and this is of great interest for applied reasons, such as a courtroom, witness testimony, etc. It is agreed that the relationship between confidence and accuracy is not simple. Therefore, it is imperative that future research continues to uncover factors influencing confidence and accuracy. To my knowledge, no studies have investigated the Confidence-Accuracy relationship in the context of weapon identification.

Exposure to Weapons Exposure to weapons has been shown to significantly impact human behavior for over a quarter century. Berkowitz and Le Page’s (1967) seminal work on aggressive behavior demonstrates that behavior can be altered in the presence of weapons. This study has been replicated in different countries, most notably by Frodi (1975) in Sweden. Participants were placed in a room with one of the following criteria: weapons present, weapons absent, or a baby bottle present. In addition to the latter, participants were angered by an accomplice of the experimenter and then given an opportunity to counter-aggress. This opportunity was afforded by allowing participants to electrically shock the confederates (experimenter’s accomplice) when judging their problem solving skills. One 8 8 electrical shock was given for a good performance and 10 electrical shocks for a poor performance. Results suggest that participants exposed to weapons (e.g., handguns) give the largest number of shocks to their partners, whereas the control group (i.e., absence of weapons) and the group exposed to aggression-inhibiting stimuli (e.g., a baby bottle present) give fewer shocks. In essence, the presence of weapons alters human behavior by increasing aggression. Since the advent of television, researchers have used this medium to investigate the effects of violent entertainment on human behavior (e.g., Martinez & Richters, 1993; Murray, 2008; Roberts & Bachen, 1981). Phillips (1983) conducted a classic study demonstrating that homicides in the United States increase in the days following a televised heavyweight boxing match. Moreover, the amount of publicity that surrounds the boxing event positively correlates with homicides in the United States. Phillips demonstrates that violence in the media has a significant effect on human aggression. Psychologists have investigated the relationship between the exposure to violence in the media and cognition. For example, Bushman (1998) conducted a study that investigated one’s ability to recall commercials viewed within violent or nonviolent video segments. Bushman recorded and developed two 15-minute video clips. One video, Karate Kid III, showed belligerent fighting and vandalism. The other video, Gorillas in the Mist, contained no violence, but was judged equally exciting by college students. The two 30-second advertisements were placed within each of the two video clips. Respondents watched either the violent or nonviolent video clip (Karate Kid III vs. Gorillas in the Mist). They were then asked to provide the names of the two brands advertised and to list as many details about the commercial as possible. The results demonstrate that commercial details 9 9 are recalled better when viewed within a nonviolent video clip. Bushman concluded that violence deteriorates memory. Unfortunately, there is a void in the scientific literature regarding the exposure of weapons in the media and its effects on cognition. The current study aims to investigate one’s ability to recognize weapons and his or her level of confidence. Interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media also are explored.

Hypotheses The present study was conducted to investigate and find a relationship, if any, between the variables surrounding weapon identification, level of confidence, and exposure to weapons. The following hypotheses have been generated to guide the scientific investigation of these variables. Hypotheses 1A to 1D focus on the relationship between types of weapon exposure and level of confidence in one’s ability to identify weapons. Hypothesis 2 considers a relationship between indentifying weapons accurately and the level of confidence in identifying weapons and weapon color. Finally, Hypothesis 3 considers a relationship between identifying weapons and types of weapon exposure. Hypothesis 1A: Jointly, the variables interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media significantly predict the level of confidence in weapon identification (one’s ability to identify weapons accurately). Hypothesis 1B: Interest in weapons significantly predicts the level of confidence in weapon identification. Hypothesis 1C: Experience with weapons significantly predicts the level of confidence in weapon identification. 10 10

Hypothesis 1D: Exposure to weapons in the media significantly predicts the level of confidence in weapon identification. Hypothesis 2: Accurate weapon identification will influence the level of confidence in weapon and weapon color identification. Hypothesis 3: Accurate weapon identification will influence the level of interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media.

CHAPTER 3: METHODS

Participants included 28 women and 18 men ranging in age from 18 – 27 (M = 19.43, SD = 1.93) recruited from freshman psychology courses at California State University, Fresno. The sampled population was representative of the population at large in terms of intellectual capabilities, knowledge base, and diversity; although our population was generally younger and probably in better health. All participants provided informed consent prior to the start of the experiment (see Appendix A). They were also provided contact information to inquire further about the study, and were debriefed at the conclusion of the study (see Appendix B). A Snellen test of visual acuity was administered. Those included demonstrated at least 20/40 vision corrected or uncorrected.

Materials The materials used in this study were presented on a 42-inch Toshiba television. The video segment represented a high-quality, ecologically-valid crime scene. Under the supervision of highly experienced Police Field Training Officers, a master script was generated, which included dialogue and physical actions carried out by actors to the best of their abilities. A realistic and potentially dangerous crime scene was depicted. In the scene, a male perpetrator in his 40’s is armed with a .38 Smith & Wesson revolver. The weapon (unloaded) is aimed at a female “victim” in her early twenties. The male and female in the enacted crime scene were Caucasian. A similar process has been used in previous studies (e.g., Sharps, 2007). The perpetrator stands on the driveway of a rural area home. The setting includes a gravel driveway, shed, house wall, ladder, and white picket fence in the background, and a box, basket, and trash can in the foreground. The perpetrator 12 12 aggressively brandishes a .38 Smith & Wesson and walks toward the “victim.” The perpetrator demands money as the “victim” retreats and pleads, “No, no, no!” Profiles of both the “victim” and perpetrator are kept throughout the 5-second duration of the crime scene.

Design and Procedure In general, real-world crime events are often brief and unexpected. Eyewitnesses often feel anxiety and stress for the duration of the experience. However, this research sought to investigate crime scene variables under ideal conditions. Participants were expected to perform better in the controlled laboratory as compared to ecologically-valid settings. Six to 8 participants were in the laboratory for each experimental session. There were no occluding objects between the participants and television screen. The laboratory lights were turned off throughout the duration of the video clip in order to eliminate any reflection of light into the participant’s eyes. Common crime scene procedures that police officers follow were adopted for this study. Nearly all crime scene interviews begin with a similar open-ended question; “what happened?” Open-ended questions are used to encourage witnesses to describe events in their own words (Fisher & Schreiber, 2007). This is followed by questions of details that include, but are not limited to, height of suspect, tattoos, color of clothing, and hair color. The interview questions used in the present study were administered by questionnaire and can be found in the appendix (see Appendix C). In addition to the interview, respondents were asked to rate their interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media (see Appendix D). Next, they were asked to identify the 13 13 weapon and the color of the weapon. Finally, respondents reported their level of confidence in weapon and weapon color identification.

Measures Participants completed a questionnaire to identify, in writing, a weapon and weapon color. Their identification of the weapon and weapon color were judged by three raters. A scoring guideline was created by one of the raters to categorize each participant’s responses. All three raters used these guidelines to code the participant’s responses into nominal values (1 = wrong, 2 = indifferent, and 3 = correct). These three classifications are considered the levels of each categorical variable. Again, these categorical variables are weapon identification and weapon color identification. The level “indifferent” was created for respondents who did not qualify as “correct” or “wrong.” Respondents categorized as “indifferent” gave typical answers such as, “I don’t know.” The respondents were categorized as “correct” if they handwrote “revolver” or “handgun”, and “wrong” for any other response. In the case of identifying the color of the weapon respondents were categorized as “correct” if they handwrote “black” or “blue,” and “wrong” for any other response. Similar guidelines have been used in studies investigating eyewitness error (Sharps, Hess, Casner, Ranes, & Jones, 2007; Sharps, Janigian, Hess, & Hayward, 2009). For further details regarding categorization of respondents please see Appendix E. Coding was conducted by all three raters, although only two raters were present during each coding session. Pearson’s r was used to measure the correlation within inter-raters across the two variables. Pearson’s r has been used by researchers as a measure of inter-rater reliability for content analysis (Houston, Clifford, Phillips, & Memon, 2013). Inter-rater agreement for weapon identification and weapon color identification was high, r = 14 14

.93, r = .97 and r = .97, between the three raters. The raters discussed and resolved all discrepancies of categorization, suggesting that a high correlation within inter- raters was expected. Participants were asked to complete the following questions scored on Likert scales where, 1 = low, 4 = medium, and 7 = high. Similarly, Likert scales have been employed in crime-scene studies to analyze levels of a participant’s interest and confidence (Sharps et al., 2007, 2009). Respondents rated their personal interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media. Respondents also rated their levels of confidence in the ability to identify weapons and weapon color. All exposure and confidence variables were scored on Likert scales and served as continuous variables for statistical analysis.

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

A multiple regression was used, as opposed to a stepwise regression, because there is a scarcity of data investigating the exposure variables. In other words, there is no theoretical framework to help guide the stepwise regression model (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2013). All exposure variables were entered into the regression model equally as a precaution. Hypothesis 1A states that interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media significantly predict the level of confidence in one’s weapon identification. The results support this hypothesis with an overall significant regression model, F(3, 42) = 4.685, p = .007, R2 = .197 (see Table 1). Hypotheses 1B and 1C state that interest in weapons and experience with weapons, respectively, predict the level of confidence in one’s ability to identify a weapon. The results do not support these hypotheses. In other words, interest in weapons (β = .134, t(41) = .463, p = .235) and experience with weapons (β = .196, t(41) = .971, p = .249) are both non-significant predictors of the level of confidence in one’s ability to identify a weapon. Hypothesis 1D states that exposure to weapons in the media significantly predicts the level of confidence in weapon identification. Hypothesis 1D is supported. Therefore, exposure to weapons in the media is a significant predictor of the level of confidence in one’s ability to identify a weapon, (β = .488, t(41) = 3.086, p = .004). The results illustrate that exposure to weapons in the media is the only predictor of the level of confidence in weapon identification. Further investigation is warranted given the frequency of weapons in the media and the effect that a confident witness may have on a jury.

16 16 Table 1

Multiple Regression Results of the Interest in Weapons, Experience with Weapons, and Exposure to Weapons in the Media as Predictors in the Level of Confidence in Weapon Identification Predictors F df p Adj. R2 T p β Overall Model 4.685 3, 42 .007* .197 Interest .741 .463 .134 Experience .971 .337 .196 Exposure in Media 3.086 .004 .488* Note. Significance is indicated by an asterisk (*).

A MANOVA analysis was used in the investigation of hypothesis 2. Hypothesis 2 states that accurate identification of a weapon will influence the level of confidence in one’s ability to identify a weapon and weapon color. Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 2. The independent variable, weapon identification, is categorized into three levels (i.e. wrong, indifferent, and correct). The dependent variables are confidence in one’s ability to identify a weapon and weapon color. A MANOVA revealed that weapon identification has a significant effect on the level of confidence in weapon identification and the level of confidence in identifying weapon color, F(8, 78) = 4.41, p < .001, Hotelling’s Trace = .905, η2 = .46. A univariate F-test reveals that participants who accurately identify the weapon have a significantly higher level of confidence in weapon identification than those who are unable to accurately identify the weapon, F(2, 43) = 17.435, p < .001, and η2 = .448. In other words, a higher level of confidence is associated with accuracy in weapon identification. Furthermore, accurate weapon identification was not found statistically significant by univarite F-test on its ability to influence the level of confidence in identifying weapon color, F(2, 43) = .576, p = .566. 17 17 Table 2

Descriptive Statistics of Weapon Identification on Confidence Variables Weapon Identification Variables Right (N = 30) Indifferent (N = 7) Wrong (N = 9) Weapon Identification M 4.77 1.86 1.55 SD 1.92 1.21 0.88 Color Identification M 5.93 5.85 5.22 SD 1.60 1.21 2.49 Note. N = the number of participants in each group, M = the mean of the group, and SD = the standard deviation of the group.

To investigate hypothesis 3, variables were subjected to a MANOVA statistical test. Hypothesis 3 states that accuracy in identifying a weapon will influence the level of interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media. Descriptive statistics are provided in Table 3. Again, the independent variable, weapon identification, is categorized into three levels (i.e., wrong, indifferent, and correct). The dependent variables are interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media. One’s ability to accurately identify a weapon significantly influences interest in weapons, experience with weapons, and exposure to weapons in the media as shown by A MANOVA, F(6, 80) = 2.43, p = .033, Hotelling’s Trace = .364, η2 = .154. A univariate F-test illustrates a significant effect of accuracy in the ability to identify a weapon on the exposure to weapons in the media, F(2, 43) = 5.59, p = .01, η2 = .207. The significant effect of weapon identification on exposure to weapons in the 18 18 media supports hypothesis 3. Univariate F-tests also indicate that there is not a significant effect of the ability to identify weapons on the level of interest in weapons, F(2, 43) = 1.49, p = .235, or the level of experience with weapons, F(2, 43) = 1.43, p = .249.

Table 3

Descriptive Statistics of Weapon Identification on Weapon Interest, Experience, and Exposure in the Media Weapon Identification Variables Right (N = 30) Indifferent (N = 7) Wrong (N = 9) Interest M 3.30 2.14 2.33 SD 2.10 1.68 1.66 Experience M 2.67 1.86 1.66 SD 1.98 1.21 1.11 Exposure in Media M 6.00 4.71 4.00 SD 1.54 1.60 2.29

Note. N = the number of participants in each group, M = the mean of the group, and SD = the standard deviation of the group.

CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION

This study represents the first attempt to connect exposure to weapons in the media, accuracy in weapon identification, and confidence in eyewitness testimony in regards to identifying weapons. The results suggest that exposure to weapons in the media has an influence on the level of confidence in weapon identification. Individuals with higher exposure to weapons in the media express higher levels of confidence in identifying weapons. Contrary to what was expected, interest in weapons and experience with weapons do not predict the level of confidence in weapon identification. Overall, the population sampled displayed low levels of interest in weapons and low levels of experience with weapons. It is important to note that these data should only be extrapolated to those with lower levels of interest in weapons and experience with weapons. It remains unclear whether those with high interest in weaponry and experience with weapons will produce different outcomes than the results found in this study. The effect of exposure to weapons in the media on confidence in weapon identification has potential significance in court proceedings. The depiction of weapons in the media may provide grounds for inflated eyewitness confidence in weapon recognition. Since exposure to weapons in the media was the only variable found significant in this study, future studies should aim to explore the various types of exposure to weapons in the media. These exposures can be stratified by exposure through television, movies, and internet. Whether accuracy in eyewitness identification is related to confidence in eyewitness identification shall be discussed. With regard to identification of weapons and confidence in weapon identification, respondents who make the correct weapon identification express higher levels of confidence in their 20 20 decisions. Conversely, respondents who make the wrong weapon identification express lower levels of confidence in their decisions. Similarly, Robinson and Johnson (1996) found that participants who recall details—compared to recognition of details—express higher levels of confidence in their decisions. The similarity between the present study, and that of Robinson and Johnson, is that the respondents who accurately identify details of the crime scene express high levels of confidence. Respondents who inaccurately identify details of the crime scene display low levels of confidence. The latter suggests that the relationship between confidence and accuracy is strengthened in the context of the present study. No significant relationship was found between correct weapon identification and level of confidence in identifying the color of the weapon. Table 2 demonstrates that all participants: right, wrong, and indifferent, with regards to weapon identification expressed high confidence in color identification. In other words, regardless of accuracy in identifying the weapon all participants were confident in their color identification. It should be noted that Villegas, Sharps, Satterthwaite, and Chisholm (2005) found that the color of an object is generally more easily recognized than other features of the object. Note that Villegas et al. (2005) demonstrates that individuals recall the color of a vehicle better than the vehicle type. It could be the case that individuals of the present study recall the color of the weapon better than the type of weapon. A significant main effect of weapon identification on exposure to weapons in the media was found. Respondents who accurately identified the weapon were more likely to have high exposure to weapons in the media than those who were inaccurate. One’s exposure to weapons in the media may provide practice effects on one’s ability to recognize a weapon in a crime scene. Individuals who watch higher levels of weapons in the media are better at identifying weapons than those 21 21 who watch low levels of weapons in the media. A ramification of this finding is that eyewitnesses in court proceedings have varying ability to identify weapons dependent on the level of exposure to weapons in the media. An immediate limitation of the present research is that the sampled pool only included individuals who were of low interest and low personal experience in weaponry; therefore, it is important to note that the sampled population did not represent those of high interest or experience in weaponry. It would be expected that individuals of high interest and experience in weaponry would readily identify a firearm. Another limitation is that the small sample did not allow for efficient analysis of gender differences. The proportion of women to men is too large to adequately arrive at a conclusion about gender differences in the population. In summary, respondents who had high levels of exposure to weapons in the media produced high levels of confidence in weapon identification. Furthermore, these individuals with high levels of exposure to weapons in the media were more accurate in identifying the firearm. This preliminary study encourages future investigators to create more ecologically-valid laboratory settings that will further explore causal inferences of media on cognition.

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on children and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy. New York, NY: Oxford Press. doi: 10.1093/acprof:oso/ 9780195309876.001.0001

Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Berkowitz, L., & Le Page, A. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(2), 202.

Bothwell, R. K., Deffenbacher, K. A., & Brigham, J. C. (1987). Correlation of eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Optimality hypothesis revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72(4), 691.

Brewer, N., & Burke, A. (2002). Effects of testimonial inconsistencies and eyewitness confidence on mock-juror judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 26(3), 353.

Brigham, J. C. (1990). Target person Distinctiveness and attractiveness as moderator variables in the confidence-accuracy relationship in eyewitness identification. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 101-115.

Bushman, B. J. (1998). Effects of television violence on memory for commercial messages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 4, 291-307.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. (2009).Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 20, 273-277.

Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interviewing protocols to improve eyewitness memory. The Handbook of Eyewitness Psychology, 1, 53-80.

Frodi, A. (1975). The effect of exposure to weapons on aggressive behavior from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal of Psychology, 10(4), 283- 292.

Gentile, D. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Reassessing media violence effects using a risk and resilience approach to understanding aggression. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1(3), 138-151. doi: 10.1037/A0028481 24 24 Houston, K. A., Clifford, B. R., Phillips, L. H., & Memon, A. (2013). The emotional eyewitness: The effects of emotion on specific aspects of eyewitness recall and recognition performance. Emotion, 13, 11-128. doi: 10.1037/a0029220

Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory: Attention must be paid. Law and Human Behavior, 14(2), 167-184.

Loftus, E., Loftus, G., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about weapon focus. Law and Human Behavior, 11, 55-62.

Luus, C. A., & Wells, G. L. (1994). Adult eyewitness testimony: Current trends and developments. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511759192.017

Martinez, P., & Richters, J. E. (1993). The NIMH community violence project; II. Children’s distress symptoms associated with violence exposure. Psychiatry, 56, 22.

Murray, J. P. (2008). Media violence the effects are both real and strong. American Behavioral Scientist, 51(8), 1212-1230.

Penrod, S., & Cutler, B. (1995). Witness confidence and witness accuracy: Assessing their forensic relation. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 1(4), 817.

Phillips, D. P. (1983). The impact of mass media violence on US homicides. American Sociological Review, 48(4) 560-568.

Pickel, K. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus.” Memory, 6(3), 277-295.

Pickel, K. (1999). The influence of context on the “weapon focus” effect. Law and Human Behavior, 23(3), 299-311.

Pickel, K., French, T., & Betts, J. (2003). A cross-modal weapon focus effect: The influence of a weapon’s presence on memory for auditory information. Memory, 11(3), 277-292.

Roberts, D. F., & Bachen, C. M. (1981). Mass communication effects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 307-356. 25 25 Robinson, M. D., & Johnson, J. T. (1996). Recall memory, recognition memory, and the eyewitness confidence-accuracy correlation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(5), 587-595.

Savage, J. (2008). The role of exposure to media violence in the etiology of violent behavior: A criminologist weighs in. American Behavioral Scientist, 51, 1123-1136. doi: 10.1177/0002764207312016

Scheck, B., Neufeld, P. J., Dwyer, J., & Boatman, M. (2000). Actual innocence (p. 246). BBD Audio.

Sharps, M. J. (2002). Aging, representation, and thought: Gestalt and feature- intensive processing. Piscataway, NJ: Transaction.

Sharps, M. J., Barber, T. L., Stahl, H., & Villegas, A. B. (2003). Eyewitness memory for weapons. Forensic Examiner, 12, 34-37.

Sharps, M. J., Hess, A. B., Casner, H., Ranes, B., & Jones, J. (2007) Eyewitness memory in context: Toward a systematic understanding of eyewitness evidence. Forensic Examiner, 16(3), 21-27.

Sharps, M. J., Janigian, J., Hess, A. B., & Hayward, B. (2009). Eyewitness memory in context: Toward a taxonomy of eyewitness error. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24(1), 36-44. doi: 10.1007/s11896-9029-4

Sharps, M. J., & Nunes, M. A. (2003). Gestalt and feature-intensive processing: Toward a unified model of human information processing. Current Psychology, 21, 68-84.

Shaw III, J. S., & McClure, K. A. (1996). Repeated postevent questioning can lead to elevated levels of eyewitness confidence. Law and Human Behavior, 20(6), 629-653.

Sporer, S.L, Malpass, R. S., & Koehnken, G. (2001). Recognizing faces of other ethnic groups: An intergration of theories. Psycholgoy, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 36-49.

Steblay, N. K., Dysart, J. E., & Wells, G. L. (2011). Seventy-two tests of the sequential lineup superiority effect: A meta-analysis and policy discussion. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 17(1), 99-139. doi: 10.1037/a0021650

Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon. 26 26 Villegas, A. B., Sharps, M. J., Satterthwaite, B., & Chisholm, S. (2005). Eyewitness memory for vehicles. Forensic Examiner, 14, 24-28.

Weiner, I. B., & Hess, A. K. (2006). The handbook of forensic psychology. Hoboken, NJ: J. Wiley.

Wells, G. L., Ferguson, T. J., & Lindsay, R. C. (1981). The tractability of eyewitness confidence and its implications for triers of fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 66(6), 688.

Wells, G. L., Memon, A., & Penrod, S. D. (2006). Eyewitness evidence improving its probative value. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 7(2), 45-75.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: INFORMED CONSENT 29 29

Informed Consent Form You are invited to participate in a study conducted by Dr. Matthew J. Sharps, Professor, and Department of Psychology. California State University, Fresno, in collaboration and with the approval of the Fresno Police Department. The study is entitled “Responses to Forensically Relevant Stimuli and Contexts”

If you decide to participate in this study, please carefully read the information provided below prior to signing this consent form. This document describes the study and your rights as a participant in this research.

1. Description of Research: This study is designed to understand aspects of citizens and the police officers’ attention and cognition under different shift schedules, and a protective and enhancing effects of training and experience under these different schedules. In the actual studies, you will be asked to press buttons on a laboratory device, as quickly as possible, when cued to do so by lights on the device. You will be asked to examine some pictures which relate to crime and which may or may not contain weapons. You will be asked to answer some questions about what you have seen and what proper responses would be. You maybe ask to respond to some situations verbally, by pushing a button, or by “shooting” a plastic toy gun if appropriate. During some of these activities, we will measure your heart rate and skin responses to what you see and do; the measurements involved are non-invasive, do not break the skin, and pose no identifiable hazards. You will also be asked to complete several paper-and-pencil questionnaires which ask about your activities and characteristics. You do not have to answer any questions you don't want to, and you may withdraw from the research without penalty at anytime. 2. Risk and Discomfort to Research Subjects: N/A. There is a minimal risk to research subjects on this project. No discomfort or hazards associated with this research have been identified. 3. Benefits to Research Subjects: Everyone who helps with this to work will be contributing directly to our knowledge of how cognition, experience, and training work in law-enforcement and related contexts, especially in the presence of different types of shift work, and how these factors influence safety and professional effectiveness in the field. 4. Alternate Procedures: No diseases or dysfunctions will be treated, so alternate procedures are not applicable 5. Confidentiality of Research Data: Absolutely confidentiality of a data and records will be maintained. Names will not be maintained with data protocols, and informed consent forms will be kept separate from data. All raw data and forms will be kept under locked secure conditions, and destroyed five years after collection. 6. Compensation of Research Subjects: NA 7. Information Resources Available to Research Subjects: 30 30  Questions Regarding the Nature of the Research: Dr. Matthew Sharps, (559) 278-2347.  Questions Regarding the Rights of Research Subject The CSUF Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects, (559) 278-2083.  Questions Regarding Research-Related Injuries: There should be no danger of such injuries. However, any such enquiries should be directed to Dr. Sharps or to the Committee on the Protection of Human Subjects.

8. Over the 3 year anticipated course of this study, approximately 650 persons are expected to participate. 9. Your participation in this project is completely voluntary. Your decision whether or not to participate will not prejudice you future relations with CSU, Fresno, or with the Fresno Police Department. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw your consent and discontinue participation at any time without penalty. The Human Research Committee of the CSUF Department of Psychology has reviewed and approved the procedures for the present research. You will be given a copy of this form to keep.

YOU ARE MAKING A DECISION WHETHER OR NOT TO PARTICIPATE YOUR SIGNATURE INDICATES THAT YOU HAVE DECIDED TO PARTICIPATE, HAVING READ THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE.

PARTICIANTS NAME: ______

PARTICIPANTS SIGNATURE ______DATE:______

Project Director’s Signature:______

Dr. Matthew J. Sharps

APPENDIX B: DEBRIEFING FORM 32 32

California Project on Forensic Cognition Thank you for taking the time to participate in this study. Increasing rates and severity of violent crime have resulted in an increased need to understand how police officers, security personnel, witnesses, and victims respond to and understand crime situations which vary in complexity, level of threat, and potential consequences. This is true both of actual crimes and of their interpretation in courtrooms. This project addresses these issues, making use both of field situations and of laboratory experiments in which precise control of experimental conditions allows us to make specific inferences which can then be evaluated against training scenarios and actual crimes. Participants in these studies are asked to observe forensically-relevant objects (such as cars, vehicles, or evidence such as drugs or alcohol) or crime scenes or situations derived from actual police training or which have actually occurred in the field. Respondents are asked to remember what they have seen under different conditions (such factors as lighting, exposure time, and complexity are varied systematically), to interpret what they have seen or are seeing, and in many cases to react to these situations or to demonstrate what they believe an appropriate response would be. Some respondents are also asked to have physiological responses, such as heart rate, skin responses to stress, or even brain waves recorded as they observe and react to these situations, always under safe, noninvasive conditions. These experiments are allowing us to form a much better picture of how human nervous systems react, and of how cognitions and perception are altered, by the various conditions which real-world law-enforcement personnel and civilians encounter within the contexts typical of the modern realm of criminal activity. Work in this laboratory, conducted by Prof. Matthew Sharps of the Department of Psychology and by carefully trained students who are developing expertise in the relevant fields, has recently been published in the journals Forensic Examiner, Addictive Behaviors, and Current Psychology, and has been presented in a number of professional venues including national and international 33 33 conferences of the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology, the Western and American Psychological Associations, the American Psychological Society, and the

Forensic Mental Health Association of California. Your participation in this research provides a very valuable service which should enhance the safety of police and security officers, offenders, potential victims of crimes, and innocent witnesses and bystanders in California, the U.S., and around the world. Thank you again for your assistance with this research. If you’d like additional information, you may contact Prof. Sharps directly at (559) 278-2347, or receive reprints of articles on this research. We greatly appreciate your help and cooperation.

APPENDIX C: EYEWITNESS INTERVIEW

35 35

Please answer each question to the very best of your ability. Please answer the questions in order. If, after you answer a question, more detail occurs to you, please add that detail in the question’s answer space, but indicate that you thought of it after you had gone on, and please give the number of the question you were addressing when you thought of the additional information. Please do not erase any of the information you put down. What was the suspect wearing? Was the suspect male or female? Was he or she armed? If so, did you see the weapon? What kind of weapon was it? Does the suspect have any distinguishing features? What are they, if any? What happened in the scene? Where was the suspect? Were there other people? Where were they? How far were they from the suspect? Describe the environment. What objects can you remember in the scene? Describe the suspect’s clothes. Any hat? If so, describe. Describe the suspect’s coat or shirt. Was the suspect wearing a coat? Describe the suspect’s shoes. What race was the suspect? Describe the suspect’s complexion. Any facial hair on the suspect? Describe. Any marks or tattoos? Describe. How tall was the suspect? 36 36

How much did the suspect weigh? Describe the suspect’s build or physique. How old was the suspect? Did you see a gun? How did you know it was a gun, if you saw one? Describe or identify the gun (if any) by type. How do you know what kind of gun it was, if you identified one? If a police officer, in answering a call, were to encounter this situation, what should that officer do? If a police officer, in answering a call, were to encounter this situation, should the officer fire on the suspect? Why or why not? Was there a victim in this crime? Was the victim, if any, killed, wounded or injured? If so, how? Describe the victim, if any? What was the primary source of danger, if any, in the scene? Did you see any other sources of danger? If so, what were they? And where? Where is the suspect now? Did you see where the suspect went? If so, what was the direction of travel?

APPENDIX D: RECALL QUESTIONNAIRE 38 38

On a scale 1 to 7, where 1 is low and 7 is high, rate your: Interest in firearms and weapons: Personal experience with firearms and weapons: Experience seeing firearms and weapons in the media:

Regarding the weapon that you saw (if you saw one), answer the following: What kind (name) of weapon was it? What brand of weapon was it? What caliber of weapon was it? What color was the weapon?

Please rate your confidence of your weapon identifications below, if you made any, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is low confidence and 7 high confidence. Overall confidence rating of weapon identification: Confidence of weapon brand identification: Confidence of weapon caliber identification: Confidence of weapon color identification:

APPENDIX E: RECALL QUESTIONNAIRE SCORING PROTOCOL 40 40

On a scale 1 to 7, where 1 is low and 7 is high, rate your: Interest in firearms and weapons: 1-7 scale indicated by participant Personal experience with firearms and weapons: 1-7 scale indicated by participant Experience seeing firearms and weapons in the media: 1-7 scale indicated by participant WHAT KIND (NAME) OF WEAPON WAS IT? 3 = Gun 2 = “I don’t know” 1 = Incorrect, no response WHAT BRAND OF WEAPON WAS IT? 3 = Smith & Wesson 2 = I don’t know 1 = Incorrect, no response

WHAT CALIBER OF WEAPON WAS IT? 3 = correct 2 = I don’t know 1 = Incorrect, no response WHAT COLOR WAS THE WEAPON? 3 = Correct/Black/Silver 2 = “I don’t know” 1 = Incorrect; no response

Please rate your confidence of your weapon identifications below, if you made any, on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 is low confidence and 7 high confidence. 41 41

Overall confidence rating of weapon identification: 1-7 scale indicated by participant Confidence of weapon brand identification: 1-7 scale indicated by participant Confidence of weapon caliber identification: 1-7 scale indicated by participant Confidence of weapon color identification: 1-7 scale indicated by participant

APPENDIX F: EXPERIMENT DIRECTIONS 43 43

Monologue: “Please do your best and take this experiment very seriously because we think that this work will in investigating crime scenes, and keep innocent people from going to jail.”

***START 10 MINUTE TIMER, SHOW SCENE FOR 5 SECONDS*** Do not start next section until ten minutes or 600 seconds has elapsed.

***SHOW MODIFIED SNELLEN VISUAL ACUITY TEST***

Monologue: “On your desk is a packet, on the cover sheet please copy line seven in the space provided.”

“In the remaining space on the cover sheet, write what you would tell a 9-1-1 operator about what happened in the scene.”

***ALLOW 300 SECONDS OF TIME TO ELAPSE***

Monologue: “Please read over your answer and add in any details that you left out of your original answer.”

***AFTER 600 SECONDS PROCEED TO THE INTERVIEW SECTION OF THE PACKET***

Monologue: “Please answer each question to the very best of your ability. Please answer the questions in order. If, after you answer a question, more details occur to you please add that detail in that question’s answer space, but indicate that you thought of it after you had gone on, and please give the number of the question you were addressing when you thought of the additional information. Please do not erase any of the information you put down. Are there any questions?”

***ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS***

Monologue: “Please do not discuss the details of this experiment with other people.”

Fresno State

Non-Exclusive Distribution License (to archive your thesis/dissertation electronically via the library’s eCollections database)

By submitting this license, you (the author or copyright holder) grant to Fresno State Digital Scholar the non-exclusive right to reproduce, translate (as defined in the next paragraph), and/or distribute your submission (including the abstract) worldwide in print and electronic format and in any medium, including but not limited to audio or video.

You agree that Fresno State may, without changing the content, translate the submission to any medium or format for the purpose of preservation.

You also agree that the submission is your original work, and that you have the right to grant the rights contained in this license. You also represent that your submission does not, to the best of your knowledge, infringe upon anyone’s copyright.

If the submission reproduces material for which you do not hold copyright and that would not be considered fair use outside the copyright law, you represent that you have obtained the unrestricted permission of the copyright owner to grant Fresno State the rights required by this license, and that such third-party material is clearly identified and acknowledged within the text or content of the submission.

If the submission is based upon work that has been sponsored or supported by an agency or organization other than Fresno State, you represent that you have fulfilled any right of review or other obligations required by such contract or agreement.

Fresno State will clearly identify your name as the author or owner of the submission and will not make any alteration, other than as allowed by this license, to your submission. By typing your name and date in the fields below, you indicate your agreement to the terms of this distribution license.

Embargo options (fill box with an X).

Make my thesis or dissertation available to eCollections immediately upon x submission.

Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 2 years from date of graduation.

Embargo my thesis or dissertation for a period of 5 years from date of graduation.

Emanuel Alcala

Type full name as it appears on submission

April 2, 2013

Date