According to legislation, objects are typically classified as weapons if they are offensive per se (referred to here as proper) and if they are adapted for use as weapons or carried with the intent of causing injury (referred to here as improper), with specific regulations on their usage and possession in public spaces. However, little evidence exists on the validity of this distinction in psychology, despite a widespread recognition of the importance of psychological states and subjective perceptions in risk assessment. We conducted an online survey to evaluate hazard perceptions in relation to three dimensions (dangerousness, frequency of events, controllability) of three object categories: proper weapons, improper weapons, and everyday objects. The data from our 300 respondents reveal that the three categories of objects differ from one another on the three dimensions. Moreover, hazard perceptions differ between males and females for improper weapons but less so for proper weapons. These findings suggest that proper and improper weapons are two psychologically distinct categories, albeit with fuzzy boundaries. Investigations into their differential properties may thus help improve risk assessment in security contexts.

No abstract