In two experiments exploring possible causes of the "weapon focus" effect, undergraduates viewed videotapes depicting interactions in business establishments. The target character was either empty-handed or held different objects that varied in both threat and unusualness. Witnesses attempted to describe the target's features and clothing, identify the object held by him (if any), and identify him in a photo line-up. The accuracy of witnesses' descriptions was affected by unusualness but not threat. Identification accuracy did not differ by condition. Witnesses had difficulty remembering the low-threat, non-unusual object; many either failed to identify it (Experiment 1) or reported seeing no object (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments imply that weapon focus, when it occurs, may do so because weapons are unexpected.

No abstract

Three experiments investigated mock jurors' ability to disregard inadmissible prior conviction evidence and hearsay. In Experiments 1 and 2, college students listened to an audiotape enacting a theft trial. The critical evidence favored the prosecution and was objected to by the defense. In three different conditions the judge either ruled the evidence admissible, ruled it inadmissible, or ruled it inadmissible and explained the legal basis for the ruling. In a fourth condition no critical evidence was presented. The critical witness' credibility was also manipulated. With prior conviction evidence but not hearsay the legal explanation "backfired." In addition, the critical witness' credibility did not affect subjects' ability to disregard inadmissible evidence. The results of Experiment 3 suggest that the legal explanation may have affected the use of hearsay and prior conviction evidence differently because of subjects' dissimilar preconceptions of the fairness of using the two evidence items to assess guilt.One area of interest to researchers is whether juries (and individual jurors) are truly competent to make decisions that have significant implications for defendants and for society in general. Studies have investigated the ability of jurors to understand (e.g., Reifman, Gusick, & Ellsworth, 1992) and follow (Smith, 1993) judges' instructions, to comprehend quantitative evidence (Kaye & Koehler, * I am grateful to the following individuals for their assistance with this research: for help with data collection, Kerry McCafferty, Frank Ross, Lana Symmes, and Marsennia Wells; for their fine acting on the audiotapes,

This research investigated whether generating misinformation impairs memory for actual information. After watching a videotaped robbery, some witnesses were interviewed about it, but others did not rehearse the event details. One week later, the witnesses tried to remember the robber's appearance. In Experiment 1, those who fabricated a description of the robber during the interview and those who did not rehearse remembered fewer correct details than did truthful witnesses or those who fabricated about another person. Witnesses who fabricated about the robber also reported more incorrect details than did truthful or non-interviewed witnesses. In Experiment 2, witnesses who fabricated about the robber performed as poorly on the memory test as did witnesses who answered interview questions using false information prepared for them. In both experiments deceptive witnesses sometimes reported invented details on the memory test, suggesting that they may have come to believe some fabrications.

We compared the influence of a weapon's presence on eyewitnesses' memory for a White versus a Black male perpetrator. Prior data indicate that unusual objects in visual scenes attract attention and that a weapon's effect depends on how unusual it seems within the context in which it appears. Therefore, given the stereotype linking Black men and weapons, we predicted a weaker weapon focus effect with the Black perpetrator. The results of Experiment 1 supported this hypothesis using White and Black witnesses. Moreover, in Experiment 2 the weapon focus effect became nonsignificant when the Black perpetrator wore a style of clothing that is strongly associated with Black men. We propose that observing an armed Black perpetrator automatically activates a stereotype linking Black men with weapons and crime, which in turn reduces the perceived unusualness of the weapon and thus its ability to attract attention.