Study -- Holding a gun makes you think others are too

[Byron]

Interesting study that I think has a lot of relevance to anyone who carries:

http://newsinfo.nd.edu/news/29684-ho...esearch-shows/

...by virtue of affording the subject the opportunity to use a gun, he or she was more likely to classify objects in a scene as a gun...

“One reason we supposed that wielding a firearm might influence object categorization stems from previous research in this area, which argues that people perceive the spatial properties of their surrounding environment in terms of their ability to perform an intended action,” Brockmole says.

[Nate]

I can't say I'm surprised... I've seen a bunch of studies of the effect framing has on people's estimates of some quantity.

Examples stats/econ/sociology professors use go something like this... write a number on the chalkboard (say, 75) then ask the class a question like what percentage of people prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate (or how many gumballs are in the jar, or whatever--possibly with a prize for the closest answer). Then, ask another class the same question, but write 25 on the chalkboard first. Collect the two classes' estimates, average them out... the one that had 75 on the chalkboard is likely to have a higher average estimate than the one with 25. I've even read of the effect still holding if the number is randomly generated, and the class knows that it's randomly generated and has *nothing* to do with the question. (by rolling dice and writing the result on the board)

So, if known to be unrelated random numbers influence the way people estimate quantities, I can't say I'm shocked that holding an object makes you more likely to notice/think you notice an object. I would imagine that holding an apple would make you more likely to notice apples and to "classify objects in a scene" as apples.

[Savage Hands]

Meh, most people on this forum who get the kind of training in regards to things like mindset and awareness of surroundings etc... think others are armed even if they themselves are not IMO.

i.e. it doesn't take wearing a firearm to feel like everyone does.

[The Dreaming Tree]

I can't say I'm surprised... I've seen a bunch of studies of the effect framing has on people's estimates of some quantity.

Examples stats/econ/sociology professors use go something like this... write a number on the chalkboard (say, 75) then ask the class a question like what percentage of people prefer vanilla ice cream to chocolate (or how many gumballs are in the jar, or whatever--possibly with a prize for the closest answer). Then, ask another class the same question, but write 25 on the chalkboard first. Collect the two classes' estimates, average them out... the one that had 75 on the chalkboard is likely to have a higher average estimate than the one with 25. I've even read of the effect still holding if the number is randomly generated, and the class knows that it's randomly generated and has *nothing* to do with the question. (by rolling dice and writing the result on the board)

So, if known to be unrelated random numbers influence the way people estimate quantities, I can't say I'm shocked that holding an object makes you more likely to notice/think you notice an object. I would imagine that holding an apple would make you more likely to notice apples and to "classify objects in a scene" as apples.

It's called the "availability heuristic". People are likely to "recall/interpret", although many times incorrectly, differently based on information their subconcious may consider relevant. Unfortunately, due to it's power, that is one of the reasons first hand testimony can be so damning: our memories are absolutely vulnerable to adjustment without ever realizing it.

Meh, most people on this forum who get the kind of training in regards to things like mindset and awareness of surroundings etc... think others are armed even if they are not IMO.

I don't know how to interpret what you posted. I, honestly, think it's a good thing to assume everyone is armed. Why not?

[Savage Hands]

I don't know how to interpret what you posted. I, honestly, think it's a good thing to assume everyone is armed. Why not?

I do to, I just don't buy the 'study'.

[Tamara]

It's called the "availability heuristic". People are likely to "recall/interpret", although many times incorrectly, differently based on information their subconcious may consider relevant. Unfortunately, due to it's power, that is one of the reasons first hand testimony can be so damning: our memories are absolutely vulnerable to adjustment without ever realizing it.

The time that I got out of my car and the creepy dude rushed me, I absolutely remember picking the can of pepper spray and the cell phone off the tan cloth seat of my gold Fiero. I remember the way the car smelled, I remember sliding the "t-handle" shifter into park, I remember seeing the guy in the driver's side mirror of the Fiero, closing the fairly thick and heavy Pontiac door...

It wasn't until I was relating this experience to my current roommate that I realized that I didn't own that Fiero for another year and a half. I was driving a red Porsche at the time, not a gold Fiero. Lord only knows why my memory has dubbed that in; it's why I doubt the memory that I was actually starting to pull the trigger. My rational mind now knows that early-1995 me didn't have anywhere near that kind of trigger control, because early 2012 me sure doesn't.

Eyewitness testimony blows. While I'm feeling pretty confident about the central details, my mind has obviously been cheerfully painting in the peripheral vision stuff for the last seventeen years.

[Byron]

I do to, I just don't buy the 'study'.

What don't you buy?


The point of the study was not whether an armed individual assumes that other people are armed; the point was that participants' visual perception of an object could be influenced by what they were holding.

There are countless stories of individuals being shot because they were perceived to be holding a gun when they were actually holding a harmless item (like a cell phone or a wallet). This study holds relevance to that issue.

As Tree notes above, our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness testimony has changed drastically in the last few decades. This is an area that is ripe for further research.

[Byron]

Eyewitness testimony blows. While I'm feeling pretty confident about the central details, my mind has obviously been cheerfully painting in the peripheral vision stuff for the last seventeen years.

Great example, Tam.

Likewise, I have a vivid memory of a car crash burned into my mind, but the details of that memory do not match up with the actual facts. When it plays in my head, I always see a sunny day. That's not true though: it was raining. And that's not just some inconsequential detail: the rain was a major contributing factor to the accident.

[Al T.]

Another weird memory thing. I vividly recall a meeting with someone who was smokeing. They have, in fact, never smoked. I could pass a lie detector test of them smoking though.

[Badfish25]

What don't you buy?


The point of the study was not whether an armed individual assumes that other people are armed; the point was that participants' visual perception of an object could be influenced by what they were holding.

There are countless stories of individuals being shot because they were perceived to be holding a gun when they were actually holding a harmless item (like a cell phone or a wallet). This study holds relevance to that issue.

As Tree notes above, our understanding of the reliability of eyewitness testimony has changed drastically in the last few decades. This is an area that is ripe for further research.

If you took some people who have been carrying for a few years, I think the results would be a lot different than some random people who have most likely never even held a gun.

I would have been amazed if the results weren't what they are as they have heavily influenced there test group.