Threat is in the Sex of the Beholder: Men Find Weapons Faster than do Women

Abstract

Abstract:In visual displays, people locate potentially threatening stimuli, such as snakes, spiders, and weapons, more quickly than similar benign stimuli, such as beetles and gadgets. Such biases are likely adaptive, facilitating fast responses to potential threats. Currently, and historically, men have engaged in more weapons-related activities (fighting and hunting) than women. If biases of visual attention for weapons result from selection pressures related to these activities, then we would predict such biases to be stronger in men than in women. The current study reports the results of two visual search experiments, in which men showed a stronger bias of attention toward guns and knives than did women, whether the weapons were depicted wielded or not. When the weapons were depicted wielded, both sexes searched for them with more caution than when they were not. Neither of these effects extended reliably to syringes, a non-weapon-yet potentially threateningobject. The findings are discussed with respect to the "weapons effect" and social coercion theory.

Search for Familiar and Dangerous: Not Seeing Gopnik in the Crowd

“…However, we did not observe any effect of threatening stimuli on visual search, which was shown for various threatening stimuli before (Hansen & Hansen, 1988;LoBue, 2010;Ohman et al, 2001;Öhman et al, 2012;Sulikowski & Burke, 2014). There are two different explanations of these results:…”

“…There are other threaten stimuli, such as snakes, spiders, for which effects similar to angry faces observed (Flykt, 2005;Ohman, Flykt, & Esteves, 2001). But still, there are debates between these two explanations of threatening effect, which could be also observed in other paradigms (for example continuous flash suppression) and for other threatening stimuli (for example weapons or knives) (Bar & Neta, 2006;Fox, Russo, & Dutton, 2002;Gray, Adams, Hedger, Newton, & Garner, 2013;Hedger, Adams, & Garner, 2015;Horstmann, 2007;LoBue, 2010;Öhman, 2005;Öhman, Soares, Juth, Lindstrm, & Esteves, 2012;Schubö, Gendolla, Meinecke, & Abele, 2006;Stein & Sterzer, 2012;Sulikowski & Burke, 2014).…”

The Weapons Effect

“…In particular, this line of research examines if individuals respond to weapons such as guns and knives similarly to stimuli we are biologically prepared to recognize as threats such as spiders and snakes. This research consistently shows that adults respond more rapidly to both types of threatening items compared to non-threatening items (e.g., Blanchette, 2006;De Oca & Black, 2013;Fox, Griggs, & Mouchlianitis, 2007;Sulikowski & Burke, 2014). There may be gender differences in primary appraisal to weapons (Sulikowski & Burke, 2014), with males responding with more hostile appraisals than females to threatening items.…”

“…This research consistently shows that adults respond more rapidly to both types of threatening items compared to non-threatening items (e.g., Blanchette, 2006;De Oca & Black, 2013;Fox, Griggs, & Mouchlianitis, 2007;Sulikowski & Burke, 2014). There may be gender differences in primary appraisal to weapons (Sulikowski & Burke, 2014), with males responding with more hostile appraisals than females to threatening items. Finally, recent research examining secondary appraisal shows that similar effects are obtained with objects that are typically not weapons, but could be used as weapons, such as garden shears (Holbrook, Galperin, Fessler, Johnson, Bryant, & Haselton, 2014).…”

Sex Differences in Same-Sex Aggression

“…Noted earlier was the male propensity to aggress with weaponry (Archer 2004). Related to this, men are also more sensitive to the presence of weapons (Sulikowski and Burke 2014). From early childhood, men even report higher frequencies of aggression and violence in dreams than women, and within dream manifestations of these aggressors are far more 431 likely to be male (Schredl 2009).…”