Snap Shot
- The question: How do violence, fear, and the presence of a weapon affect what an eyewitness remembers about an offender and an event?
- What the research shows: Emotional arousal tends to preserve memory for the core of an event while memory for surrounding detail suffers, and a visible weapon tends to reduce memory for the offender’s appearance. The weapon effect is reliable in laboratory meta-analyses, moderate for descriptions and small for lineup identifications, appears smaller in studies of actual crimes, and depends on exposure time, threat, and how unexpected the object was.
- What it does not show: The research does not show that a witness to a violent or armed crime cannot remember accurately; real witnesses to violence have given accurate accounts, effects in actual cases appear smaller than in the laboratory, and several recent studies did not find the effect. No study can say whether a weapon impaired a particular witness’s memory.
- The law: Weapon focus is an estimator variable that bears on the Biggers factors of opportunity to view, degree of attention, and accuracy of the prior description. Expert testimony is governed by Rule 702, Houser in courts-martial, and Chapple in Arizona, and it must stay general rather than vouch for or against a witness.
- Issues for each side: Prosecutors can show that core memory often survives violence and that identification effects are small, but should document exposure time and the witness’s view; defense counsel can show that a weapon and brief exposure reduce memory for the offender, but should not present the effect as proof of misidentification.
Many crimes that produce eyewitnesses are frightening or involve a weapon. Whether fear and the sight of a weapon make memory better or worse arises in suppression hearings, in rulings on expert testimony, and in argument. Some people assume a terrifying moment is burned into memory; others assume fear makes a witness unreliable. The research supports neither assumption in its simple form.
Two bodies of research are involved. The first concerns emotional arousal, which tends to preserve memory for the central features of an event and weaken memory for peripheral ones. The second concerns the weapon focus effect: witnesses who see an offender holding a weapon tend to describe and identify the offender less accurately than witnesses who see an ordinary object. Both effects are real and conditional.
This paper reviews the arousal research, studies of real witnesses, the weapon focus research and its explanations, and recent null findings, then the limits of the evidence and the governing law.
Arousal and the Central–Peripheral Pattern
The most influential account of how emotion shapes memory for detail traces to Easterbrook’s (1959) cue-utilization hypothesis, which proposed that rising arousal narrows the range of cues a person attends to. Applied to eyewitnesses, the idea is that fear concentrates attention on the source of the threat and the core of the action at the expense of the surrounding scene. A major review concluded that emotional events are often well remembered for their central details and gist, while peripheral details are often remembered more poorly than in neutral events (Christianson, 1992). Attention is not the whole explanation. When researchers controlled where participants could look by limiting them to a single brief fixation, central details of emotional scenes were still remembered better than those of neutral scenes, which suggests that emotionally significant information also receives more elaborate processing after it is seen (Christianson et al., 1991). In a human study, a drug that blocks adrenergic stress hormones selectively reduced memory for the emotional portion of a story (Cahill et al., 1994); much of the broader evidence on the amygdala’s role comes from animal research (McGaugh, 2004), and none of it measures what a particular witness remembers.
The central–peripheral pattern is less settled than it is often presented. Lane and Houston (2021, pp. 105–108) note that the literature has tended to treat stress and negative emotion as the same thing, that Easterbrook’s original review drew partly on studies of food-deprived animals, and that studies have defined “central” inconsistently: some treat a detail as central because it is spatially close to the emotional element, others because it matters to the plot of the event, and the two definitions can yield different results. The pattern also depends on how the emotion is produced. When arousal came from the meaning of a story rather than from a shocking image, Laney et al. (2004) found no trade-off; participants remembered both central and peripheral details better than in a neutral version. And in a study using a filmed crime, negative emotion produced fuller descriptions of the perpetrator but poorer memory for his actions and poorer lineup accuracy, a result the simple model does not predict (Houston et al., 2013; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 113–115). A 2004 meta-analysis combining studies of different designs and settings found that high stress, on average, impaired both identification accuracy and recall of crime details, with considerable variation across studies (Deffenbacher et al., 2004). Negative emotion often preserves the gist, but stress can impair memory for the offender even when other aspects of the event are well remembered.
Tunnel Memory
Emotion can also change the shape of what is remembered. Participants who saw a disturbing slide tended to remember it as more close-up than it was, with less background, whereas those who saw neutral slides showed the usual tendency to remember a wider view than was shown (Safer et al., 1998; Lane & Houston, 2021, pp. 108–109). Memory of an emotional scene can be accurate about its focal element while distorted about its boundaries; emotion does not simply protect what is attended to.
Witnesses to Real Violence
Laboratory participants do not feel what a real victim or bystander feels, so the laboratory may misstate the effects of fear. Studies of actual witnesses are informative here. In a case study of witnesses to a fatal shooting on a public street, those who agreed to a research interview several months later gave detailed accounts that were largely accurate when checked against physical evidence, and they generally resisted misleading questions (Yuille & Cutshall, 1986). In a study of people present during bank robberies, witnesses’ reported emotional reactions varied considerably, and not all described intense fear (Christianson & Hübinette, 1993). But the shooting study involved one event and a self-selected subset of witnesses, and neither study tested identification of a stranger under controlled conditions.
The field evidence supports neither the assumption that a frightened witness cannot be accurate nor the assumption that laboratory deficits are an artifact; how frightened the witness was, how close, and for how long matter more than any general rule.
The Weapon Focus Effect
In the best-known demonstration, participants viewed slides of a man at a cashier’s counter who held out either a check or a gun. Eye tracking showed that participants fixated on the gun more often and for longer than on the check, and those in the gun condition were less likely to identify the customer from a photo lineup and described him less accurately (Loftus et al., 1987). The size of the effect across studies is described in the meta-analyses discussed below; a single experiment’s figures are not representative.
Three meta-analyses define the size of the effect. Steblay (1992), combining 19 tests from 12 reports, reported that a weapon moderately reduced how accurately the offender was described (about .55) but only slightly reduced lineup identification accuracy (about .13). Fawcett et al. (2013), with a much larger set of studies, found an overall effect of about g = 0.53 that was larger in threatening than in non-threatening scenarios, largest at intermediate exposures of roughly 10 to 60 seconds, and smaller with longer retention intervals. Considered alone, the average effect differed by setting: it was small in studies of actual crimes (about 0.15), moderate in laboratory studies (about 0.55), and largest in staged simulations (about 0.82). Once exposure duration and retention interval were taken into account, however, setting no longer predicted the size of the effect, and laboratory studies with long exposures and delays produced effects (about 0.22) similar to those from actual crimes. The authors therefore attributed the smaller real-world effects mainly to the longer exposures and longer delays typical of actual crimes rather than to a difference between the laboratory and real life. Kocab and Sporer (2016) found a reliable, medium-sized effect on descriptions of the offender (g = 0.57 across 29 tests) but no significant effect on lineup identifications (odds ratios of about 1.29 for correct identifications in target-present lineups and 1.10 for overall correct decisions) (pp. 91, 94). The description effect was larger when the scenario involved a crime and when the weapon was something other than a gun, such as a knife (pp. 94, 101), and unusual, non-threatening objects reduced description accuracy at least as much as weapons (g = 0.76) (p. 97).
The effect is consistently larger for descriptions than for identifications, so treating the two interchangeably overstates the identification effect. Nor does a weapon necessarily weaken the relationship between a witness’s confidence and accuracy. In a study with very brief exposures, a weapon impaired recall of the perpetrator but did not reduce identification accuracy, and identifications made with high confidence were highly accurate in every condition (Carlson et al., 2016).
Why It Happens: Threat, Unusualness, and Attention
The arousal or threat account holds that a weapon frightens the witness and draws attention to the source of danger. The unusualness account holds that weapons rarely appear in ordinary settings, so a weapon is surprising, and that unexpected objects capture attention whether or not they are threatening. Pickel (1998) varied threat and unusualness independently and found that unusualness, not threat, reduced the accuracy of witnesses’ descriptions. Mitchell et al. (1998) reached a similar conclusion with videotaped scenes in which a man brandished nothing, a gun, or a stalk of celery; memory for the man’s appearance was poorer in the celery condition in both experiments, while the gun produced a weapon focus effect only in the second. Other studies indicate that threat contributes as well. Hope and Wright (2007) found that a gun and a feather duster both slowed responses on a secondary task, a sign that both drew attention, but only the gun reduced memory for the man’s appearance. Mansour et al. (2019) found that a weapon impaired memory more than a non-threatening unusual object, that threat lowered correct identifications for a short event but not for a longer one, and that a weapon effect on lineup decisions appeared for an accomplice rather than for the person holding the object.
The effect is not wholly automatic: when witnesses first heard a short lecture on weapon focus and were urged to concentrate on the perpetrator’s features, their descriptions of a person carrying a weapon were nearly as accurate as those of witnesses who saw no weapon (Pickel et al., 2006). The finding is untested in real encounters but suggests a tendency rather than an inevitability.
Recent Research
Recent work has qualified the classic picture. With still images, viewers look longer at a held weapon at some cost to the face (Biggs et al., 2013), but a gun did not attract early eye movements faster than an unexpected neutral object (Flowe et al., 2013). In eye-tracking experiments using video and slide versions of a staged robbery, a gun did not reduce the time spent looking at the perpetrator (with slides, the gun drew more gaze than a cell phone, but not at the perpetrator’s expense), and neither those experiments nor a larger online replication with the original videos found a weapon effect on memory for the perpetrator’s appearance (Körner et al., 2023). A follow-up comparing a knife, a plunger, and a water bottle found that the knife did not reduce time spent looking at the perpetrator and that memory deficits for both the knife and the plunger appeared only when the video included sound (Körner et al., 2024). Studies using virtual reality and studies combining alcohol with weapon presence have also failed to find the effect under some conditions (Harvey et al., 2020; Nyman et al., 2020).
Exposure time appears to be a boundary condition: when participants viewed a face alone or with a knife and built a composite the next day, the knife reduced the composites’ recognizability after 10 seconds of viewing but not after 30 (Erickson et al., 2024). The recent studies do not overturn the meta-analyses, but they show that the effect is sensitive to presentation, exposure time, and expectation, and that its size in a given situation is uncertain.
Limits of the Evidence
Most weapon focus research uses students viewing slides or videos with no stake and no danger. Laboratory studies can ethically produce only mild fear, which may understate threat effects, while a weapon’s novelty in a laboratory film may overstate attention effects for witnesses who expect weapons, such as police officers or service members. Individual archival studies of actual lineups have not generally found a reliable weapon effect, although pooled across studies the effect in actual crimes was small but present (Fawcett et al., 2013); in an analysis of 640 identification attempts in London, weapon presence had no independent, statistically reliable effect on outcomes (Valentine et al., 2003). Archival data have their own problems, however: whether a weapon was visible, how long the witness watched, and whether the suspect was guilty are often unknown, so their informational value is limited (Horry et al., 2014; National Research Council, 2014). Effect sizes vary widely, and recent experiments include null results. Group findings describe average tendencies; they cannot establish that a weapon impaired, or did not impair, a particular witness’s memory.
Questions to Ask About This Research
When an expert says that a weapon impairs eyewitness memory, counsel should ask which measure the statement concerns: Steblay (1992) reported a moderate reduction in description accuracy (about .55) but only a slight one in identification accuracy (about .13), and Carlson et al. (2016) found that a weapon impaired recall without reducing identification accuracy. When the Fawcett et al. (2013) meta-analysis is cited, counsel should ask how the conditions of this event compare with its moderators, including exposure duration, threat, and delay, and how the exposure time and delay before testing in this case compare with those of the studies relied on, since those two factors largely accounted for the smaller effects found in actual crimes. When the Loftus et al. (1987) slide study is offered, counsel should ask how it fits with recent eye-tracking and video studies that did not find the effect (Körner et al., 2023, 2024). When Yuille and Cutshall’s (1986) shooting witnesses are offered, counsel should ask how many participated and whether identification of a stranger was tested. When a central–peripheral claim is made, counsel should ask how “central” was defined in the studies relied on. These questions are explained in “Reading Research Claims: A Guide for Attorneys” on this site.
Violence, Weapon Focus, and the Law
Federal and Military Standards
Weapon focus and stress are estimator variables, features of the witnessing situation outside the system’s control. They bear on the reliability factors for identifications following suggestive procedures, which include the witness’s opportunity to view the offender, degree of attention, and the accuracy of the prior description (Neil v. Biggers, 1972; Manson v. Brathwaite, 1977). A visible weapon may bear on each, and because descriptions are more affected than identifications, a poor description from an armed encounter may reflect viewing conditions as much as the quality of the identification. Absent police-arranged suggestion, reliability is tested through cross-examination, jury instructions, and, where admissible, expert testimony (Perry v. New Hampshire, 2012). In revising its framework, the New Jersey Supreme Court included weapon focus in its catalog of estimator variables and observed that it matters most when an encounter is brief (State v. Henderson, 2011). Expert testimony is governed by Federal Rule of Evidence 702, as amended December 1, 2023, which requires the proponent to show that it is more likely than not that the testimony rests on sufficient facts or data and reliable methods reliably applied (Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 1993). Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael (1999) extended the gatekeeping obligation to all expert testimony, including non-scientific technical or specialized knowledge. Acceptance of the effect among eyewitness researchers rose substantially between surveys in 1989 and 2001 (Kassin et al., 1989, 2001), but acceptance of a general effect does not show that it operated in a particular case.
In courts-martial, Military Rule of Evidence 321 governs eyewitness identification. Under the rule, a lineup or other identification process is unreliable, and therefore unlawful, if it is so suggestive as to create a substantial likelihood of misidentification, and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces applies a two-step analysis asking first whether the process was unnecessarily suggestive and, if so, whether the identification is nonetheless reliable under the Biggers factors, which are not exclusive (United States v. Criswell, 2018). In Criswell, the defense argued that a stressful, violence-threatening, cross-racial encounter in poor light made the identification unreliable; the court agreed that such factors may be considered but held, over a two-judge dissent, that the military judge had weighed them and did not abuse his discretion. Expert testimony is admitted under Military Rule of Evidence 702 and the six-factor framework of United States v. Houser (1993). Under Military Rule of Evidence 1102, amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence amend the parallel military rules by operation of law eighteen months after their effective date unless the President acts otherwise, and the 2023 federal amendment to Rule 702 became part of the military rule in 2025 (Joint Service Committee on Military Justice, 2025); practitioners should confirm current text.
Arizona
Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 adopted the Daubert framework effective January 1, 2012, and was amended effective January 1, 2024 to track the 2023 federal amendment. State v. Chapple (1983) is Arizona’s leading case on eyewitness expert testimony. The Arizona Supreme Court held that excluding a qualified eyewitness expert was an abuse of discretion where the identifications were the central evidence and the circumstances were unusual, while stressing that the decision was limited to its facts, that admission otherwise remains within the trial court’s discretion, and that an expert may not tell the jury whether a particular witness is correct or mistaken. State v. Nordstrom (2001) upheld a trial court’s limitation allowing an eyewitness expert to explain general factors while barring opinions on the accuracy of particular witnesses. Challenges to pretrial identification procedures are heard at a Dessureault hearing (State v. Dessureault, 1969), and the Arizona identification instruction directs jurors to consider, among other things, the witness’s opportunity to view and degree of attention at the time of the crime and the accuracy of any prior description (RAJI (Criminal) Standard Criminal 45).
Special Issues in Legal Practice
The principles described above apply with equal force to every party in a legal proceeding. The science operates the same way regardless of who is asking the questions, and the research summarized here does not by itself favor either side. What differs between the parties is not the science but the vantage point — the particular places where these issues tend to surface, and the particular errors each party is best positioned to guard against. The two summaries below identify those recurring issues. They are offered for orientation, not as litigation strategy; in every case the controlling question is what the evidence in that case will, and will not, support, and the expert’s role is to inform the trier of fact rather than to advocate for either side.
Special Issues for Prosecutors
The research supports several propositions prosecutors can legitimately present. Witnesses to violence often remember the core of an event well, and real witnesses have given largely accurate accounts. The weapon effect on identification is small on average, smaller in actual cases than in brief laboratory exposures, absent in several recent experiments, and weaker with longer exposure, and a weapon does not necessarily weaken the confidence–accuracy relationship for an initial identification. Prosecutors are well positioned to document how long and from where the witness viewed the offender, when the weapon was visible, the description given before any procedure, and the witness’s initial confidence.
The research also counsels caution. A visible weapon can reduce memory for the offender’s appearance, particularly descriptions, and particularly when exposure was brief. Testimony that a frightening event is necessarily remembered accurately, or that memory for the weapon or assault vouches for the identification, goes beyond the research; memory for the core of an event and for a stranger’s face are different questions.
Special Issues for Defense
The research supports several propositions defense counsel can legitimately present. A visible weapon tends to draw attention and reduce memory for the offender’s face and clothing, an effect confirmed in meta-analyses and strongest for descriptions and for brief, threatening encounters. In a 2004 meta-analysis of studies of varying designs and settings, high stress, on average, impaired both identification and recall, and emotion can distort the boundaries of what is remembered. Expert testimony on these estimator variables, tied to evidence of exposure time, visibility, and delay, can help a factfinder weigh an identification.
The research also counsels caution about the limits that apply to the defense. The identification effect is small on average, smaller in actual cases, and not always found in recent studies. An expert cannot tell the factfinder that a weapon caused this witness to misidentify the accused; that is a credibility and weight judgment for the factfinder. Weapon focus research concerns memory for the offender’s appearance; using it to attack memory for the assault itself misapplies it.
This paper is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. The author is a psychologist, not an attorney; summaries of law are general and must be verified against current authority or with a licensed attorney.
References
Biggs, A. T., Brockmole, J. R., & Witt, J. K. (2013). Armed and attentive: Holding a weapon can bias attentional priorities in scene viewing. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75(8), 1715–1724. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-013-0538-6
Cahill, L., Prins, B., Weber, M., & McGaugh, J. L. (1994). β-Adrenergic activation and memory for emotional events. Nature, 371(6499), 702–704. https://doi.org/10.1038/371702a0
Carlson, C. A., Young, D. F., Weatherford, D. R., Carlson, M. A., Bednarz, J. E., & Jones, A. R. (2016). The influence of perpetrator exposure time and weapon presence/timing on eyewitness confidence and accuracy. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 30(6), 898–910. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3275
Christianson, S.-Å. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112(2), 284–309. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.2.284
Christianson, S.-Å., & Hübinette, B. (1993). Hands up! A study of witnesses’ emotional reactions and memories associated with bank robberies. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 7(5), 365–379. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350070502
Christianson, S.-Å., Loftus, E. F., Hoffman, H., & Loftus, G. R. (1991). Eye fixations and memory for emotional events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 17(4), 693–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.17.4.693
Deffenbacher, K. A., Bornstein, B. H., Penrod, S. D., & McGorty, E. K. (2004). A meta-analytic review of the effects of high stress on eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 28(6), 687–706. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-004-0565-x
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behavior. Psychological Review, 66(3), 183–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0047707
Erickson, W. B., Brown, C., Portch, E., Lampinen, J. M., Marsh, J. E., Fodarella, C., Petkovic, A., Coultas, C., Newby, A., Date, L., Hancock, P. J. B., & Frowd, C. D. (2024). The impact of weapons and unusual objects on the construction of facial composites. Psychology, Crime & Law, 30(3), 207–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2022.2079643
Fawcett, J. M., Russell, E. J., Peace, K. A., & Christie, J. (2013). Of guns and geese: A meta-analytic review of the ‘weapon focus’ literature. Psychology, Crime & Law, 19(1), 35–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1068316X.2011.599325
Flowe, H. D., Hope, L., & Hillstrom, A. P. (2013). Oculomotor examination of the weapon focus effect: Does a gun automatically engage visual attention? PLoS ONE, 8(12), Article e81011. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0081011
Harvey, A. J., Shrimpton, B., Azzopardi, Z., O’Grady, K., Hicks, E., Hirst, E., & Atkinson-Cox, K. (2020). The influence of alcohol and weapon presence on eyewitness memory and confidence. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 34(2), 489–503. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3636
Hope, L., & Wright, D. (2007). Beyond unusual? Examining the role of attention in the weapon focus effect. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21(7), 951–961. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1307
Horry, R., Halford, P., Brewer, N., Milne, R., & Bull, R. (2014). Archival analyses of eyewitness identification test outcomes: What can they tell us about eyewitness memory? Law and Human Behavior, 38(1), 94–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000060
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(1), 118–128. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029220
Joint Service Committee on Military Justice. (2025). Amendments to the Military Rules of Evidence since 1984 (G. E. Maggs, Ed.; 2025 ed.). https://jsc.defense.gov/Portals/99/MRE%20Amendments%202025.pdf
Kassin, S. M., Ellsworth, P. C., & Smith, V. L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony: A survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 44(8), 1089–1098. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.44.8.1089
Kassin, S. M., Tubb, V. A., Hosch, H. M., & Memon, A. (2001). On the “general acceptance” of eyewitness testimony research: A new survey of the experts. American Psychologist, 56(5), 405–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.5.405
Kocab, K., & Sporer, S. L. (2016). The weapon focus effect for person identifications and descriptions: A meta-analysis. In M. K. Miller & B. H. Bornstein (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (Vol. 1, pp. 71–117). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29406-3_3
Körner, H. M., Faul, F., & Nuthmann, A. (2023). Revisiting the role of attention in the “weapon focus effect”: Do weapons draw gaze away from the perpetrator under naturalistic viewing conditions? Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 85(6), 1868–1887. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02643-8
Körner, H. M., Faul, F., & Nuthmann, A. (2024). Is a knife the same as a plunger? Comparing the attentional effects of weapons and non-threatening unusual objects in dynamic scenes. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 9, Article 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-024-00579-1
Lane, S. M., & Houston, K. A. (2021). Understanding eyewitness memory: Theory and applications. New York University Press.
Laney, C., Campbell, H. V., Heuer, F., & Reisberg, D. (2004). Memory for thematically arousing events. Memory & Cognition, 32(7), 1149–1159. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196888
Loftus, E. F., Loftus, G. R., & Messo, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11(1), 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01044839
Mansour, J. K., Hamilton, C. M., & Gibson, M. T. (2019). Understanding the weapon focus effect: The role of threat, unusualness, exposure duration, and scene complexity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 33(6), 991–1007. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3515
McGaugh, J. L. (2004). The amygdala modulates the consolidation of memories of emotionally arousing experiences. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 27, 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.neuro.27.070203.144157
Mitchell, K. J., Livosky, M., & Mather, M. (1998). The weapon focus effect revisited: The role of novelty. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3(2), 287–303. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00367.x
National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/18891
Nyman, T. J., Antfolk, J., Lampinen, J. M., Korkman, J., & Santtila, P. (2020). Eyewitness identifications after witnessing threatening and non-threatening scenes in 360-degree virtual reality (or 2D) from first and third person perspectives. PLOS ONE, 15(9), Article e0238292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238292
Pickel, K. L. (1998). Unusualness and threat as possible causes of “weapon focus.” Memory, 6(3), 277–295. https://doi.org/10.1080/741942361
Pickel, K. L., Ross, S. J., & Truelove, R. S. (2006). Do weapons automatically capture attention? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(7), 871–893. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.1235
Safer, M. A., Christianson, S.-Å., Autry, M. W., & Österlund, K. (1998). Tunnel memory for traumatic events. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 12(2), 99–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-0720(199804)12:2<99::AID-ACP509>3.0.CO;2-7
Steblay, N. M. (1992). A meta-analytic review of the weapon focus effect. Law and Human Behavior, 16(4), 413–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02352267
Valentine, T., Pickering, A., & Darling, S. (2003). Characteristics of eyewitness identification that predict the outcome of real lineups. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 17(8), 969–993. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.939
Yuille, J. C., & Cutshall, J. L. (1986). A case study of eyewitness memory of a crime. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(2), 291–301. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.71.2.291
Legal Authorities
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98 (1977).
Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188 (1972).
Perry v. New Hampshire, 565 U.S. 228 (2012).
State v. Chapple, 135 Ariz. 281, 660 P.2d 1208 (1983).
State v. Dessureault, 104 Ariz. 380, 453 P.2d 951 (1969).
State v. Henderson, 208 N.J. 208, 27 A.3d 872 (2011).
State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 25 P.3d 717 (2001).
United States v. Criswell, 78 M.J. 136 (C.A.A.F. 2018).
United States v. Houser, 36 M.J. 392 (C.M.A. 1993).
Fed. R. Evid. 702.
Ariz. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 321.
Mil. R. Evid. 702.
Mil. R. Evid. 1102.
Revised Arizona Jury Instructions (Criminal), Standard Criminal 45 (Identification) (6th ed. 2022).
Related topic papers: Eyewitness Memory · Emotion, Stress, Trauma, and Memory · Confidence and Accuracy · Memory for Persons and Faces · The Isolation Effect · Memory Expert Testimony
Related topics from Arizona Forensic Services: Courts-Martial