The Theory Of Weapon Focus

The weapon focus effect phenomenon as identified by Loftus 1979, she asked participants to sit outside a laboratory where they thought they were hearing a genuine exchange between people inside the laboratory. In the

The participants that were used in this experiment were healthy male college students. The participants were divided into prisoner and guard roles. The participants were paid for the 2-week long experiment. The participants were randomly chosen as a prisoner or guard. The prisoners “were told that they would be confined and under surveillance through out the experiment, and their civil rights would be suspended”.

The article recommends that in order to reduce weapon bias people need to understand their automatic responses, as well as, control their behaviors that are associated with weapon bias. Studies show that police officers that go through firearms training, have lower weapon bias than others from the area as them. In turn, being aware of how to deal with situations like this help, individuals on the other side of the weapon. To conclude on this article, weapon bias occurs often. Individuals that believe in stereotypes, as well as, not being able to control your behaviors often affect their split-second

To experiment more on the participant’s response, another independent variable that could have influenced responses would have been if the participants, the teachers of the experiment, were able to see the learners. That way it replicates more of a learning environment where learners and teachers are face-to-face. In this case, both sides could still be in separate rooms, but instead there’s a screen showing the teacher the learner. Since the learner is only an actor and no actual harm is being inflicted unto them, and they could act like they are being shocked as well. Additionally, as the teacher is able to see the learner, a more formidable response is created as they can visually see

The study was set up as a "blind experiment" to capture if and when a person will stop inflicting pain on another as they are explicitly commanded to continue. The participants of this experiment included two willing individuals: a teacher and a learner. The teacher being the real subject and the learner is merely an actor. Both were told that they would be involved in a study that tests the effects of punishment on

The test subjects failed to think critically and even act morally in the face of authority. The teachers often referred to the experimenter to continue when they knew the learner was in pain. Even after the learner had gone silent the test subjects continued. The test subject didn’t know if they were alive in the room or not and the majority continued regardlessly.

Five hundred sixty five students ranging from grade 7 to grade 11 took part in this study. All students enrolled in an

The experiment was conducted in a small room with a table upon which the props were located in boxes, there was also a TV which played the videos of confederates, and video recording equipment. T-shirts which were worn by the confederates were strategically placed in the room so as to give the impression that the confederate had just been there. Participants were informed that no one other than the person in the video had used the props, and that they were not obligated to perform any imitation that they felt uncomfortable about.

where there would be a teacher and a subject on two opposing sides of a wall. Whenever the subject made an incorrect answer, they would receive a shock, this experiment was rigged so that the subject would actually be shocked be rather made extremely convincing screams of pain and the subject was told to give the wrong answer to the teacher. When the voltage reached passed 200 v, the teacher would become more reluctant to go further with the experiment due to the pain that the subject was going through, but the teacher didn’t know that the test was rigged. After it got past 475 V, about 65% of the teachers would hold the switch to shock the subject under the pressure from the men in the white coats recording the experiment and in most cases were reluctant to press on the button by themselves. This experiment no only proves that many people will do dangerous and immoral things under the pressure of authority, but also supports the idea that many people would not commit these acts underneath their own free will due to human

In all, the study looked at 160 shootings since 2000.” When a person want to revenge the society for some reason or just want to kill some people before he ends his life, has a gun can make a worse result. Almost at the same date of Sandy Hook, their is another case happened in China. A man who suffered unfair treatment by goverment tring to attact a kindergarten, All weapons he has, is a knife. What result he caused ? Only a teacher get hurted, nobody dead! Why there is a big difference between these two events? Weapons. American have better way to avoid kill and wound when bad thing happened but chinese not because it’s not that often happened to us but I have never heard that a Criminal can kill that much people in school. I believe that if the Chinese criminal has the same weapon as the criminal of Sandy Hook,everything will be changed.This is what guns can change, not only the result. If the criminal don’t have gun, maybe he will not to do that because he almost can’t kill anyone and will get arrest.

Vishal Singh Professor Lynch 10/20/15 Outline Specific purpose: To inform the class about how unreliable eyewitness identification can be. Central idea:

Allport, Postman (1947) and Loftus (1974) also support Bartlett’s idea of reconstructive memory. Loftus mainly focused on the reliability of eyewitness testimonies. As done in this experiment, Loftus and Palmer conducted a study on the effects of wording a question differently and how that would affect the answer. In the experiment the researchers used two different verbs on two different test groups. One was “contact” the other was “smashed”. The effect of this was a change in the speed estimated by the participants. The verb “contact” gave an average speed of 32mph while the verb “smash” gave an average of 41 mph in the experiment conducted by Loftus. There is a positive correlation between word use and how memory is retrieved because of it.

A few hours after the commencement of the experiment, the guards who had received clear instructions to keep off physical abuse had devised monstrous ways of punishing the prisoners. One of the guards, referred to as John Wayne, had developed an increasingly brutal and dehumanizing way of reprimanding the prisoners. Regardless of the fact that Zimbardo and the other psychologists saw this clear transformation and the disastrous effects it had on the subjects, they were more driven by their need to study them than the well-being of the clients. Zimbardo and his colleagues studied the subjects through videos that provided live feeds. Even though they saw the humiliation and severe mental tortures that the participants were going through, the experimenters were not ready to stop the experiment (Haslam & Reicher, 2012).

One might think that this experiment will stimulate the new research in the area of human obedience, but this did not occur. Despite the difficulties and the courage of Burger to conduct a partial replication of the original study, it did not produce any different outcomes and did not spark any new ideas in psychology (Burger, 2009). Instead, the researcher had to deal with an enormous amount of different commentaries and controversy. My main rationale for disapproving the Burger’s study is ethical characteristics of the Milgram paradigm. More specifically, now we have the Ethical Rules of the APA, which tell us that researchers should honor rights of participants to privacy, confidentiality and the right to withdraw the experiment. However, Milgram’s paradigm clearly challenges these fundamental rights and creates even more ethical dilemmas. Another rationale that I can include is the infliction of increasing pain on an unwilling participant, a characteristic that is unacceptable in modern psychological studies. Therefore, I would disapprove such experiment, because of ethical non-compliance and little contribution to the field. As for me, I view following ethical practices in my dissertation project work as a crucial element for success. It will allow me to produce reliable, meaningful and relevant scholarly data that would not be a subject to ethical

Then the participants and confederates were escorted to their testing cubicles. The experiment included a learning phase and two testing phases. The participants were shown and had to study twenty in-group (their ethnic group) or twenty out-group (different ethnic group) faces in the learning phase. Each face was shown for five seconds. After the learning phase, participants completed a memory test. The memory test included twenty new faces and twenty faces from the learning phase. The participant had to then decide if the face was an old or new face. After the first memory test, the participants then answered the following question: “How confident are you in your decision?” by clicking one of six boxes from fifty to one hundred percent. At the end of the task, the participants were distracted with a crossword puzzle. The experiment took the participants answer sheet and filled it out with the confederates answers. On the answer sheet, the confederate provided the opposite answer of the participant to ten faces and the others were marked as they both agreed on the same