Cited by 66Memory Processes and InfluencesDeception detection and forensic psychologyPolicing Practices and Perceptions

Fatal impact? The effects of emotional arousal and weapon presence on police officers' memories for a simulated crime

Hulse, Lynn M., Memon, Amina·2006·Legal and Criminological Psychology

Abstract

Purpose . (1) To investigate the effects of emotional arousal and weapon presence on the completeness and accuracy of police officers' memories; and (2) to better simulate the experience of witnessing a shooting and providing testimony. Methods . A firearms training simulator was used to present 70 experienced police officers with either a shooting or a domestic dispute scenario containing no weapons. Arousal was measured using both self‐report and physiological indices. Recall for event details was tested after a 10‐minute delay using a structured interview. Identification accuracy was assessed with a photographic line‐up. Results . Self‐report measures confirmed that the shooting induced greater arousal than did the other scenario. Overall, officers' memories for the event were less complete, but more accurate, when they had witnessed the shooting. The recall and line‐up data did not support a weapon focus effect. Conclusions . Police officers' recall performance can be affected both qualitatively and quantitatively by witnessing an arousing event such as a shooting.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/135532505x58062

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Many studies in the eyewitness field use single session designs, with encoding and retrieval taking place on the same day, mostly within minutes of each other.

    “Many studies in the eyewitness fi eld use single session designs, with encoding and retrieval taking place on the same day -mostly within minutes of each other (e.g., Davis et al., 2019; Hulse & Memon, 2006; Pezdek et al., 2020; Valentine & Mesout, 2009).”
  • Many eyewitness studies implement the stressor at the same time as the to-be-remembered stimulus or event.

    “Thus, to replicate the applied context, much of the research implements the stressor at the same time as the to-be-remembered stimulus or event (e.g., most experiments in De ff enbacher et al., 2004; Hulse & Memon, 2006; Morgan et al., 2004).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hulse, L. M., & Memon, A.
Affiliations
University of Aberdeen (GB)
Corresponding author
Hulse, Lynn M.
Venue
Legal and Criminological Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2006-09
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
313-325
ISSN
  • 1355-3259 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8333
OpenAlex
W2156954992
Cited by
66
References
5
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 2
FWCI
1.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Legal and Criminological Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Greenwich Academic Literature Archive (University of Greenwich) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
police officers, eyewitness memory, emotional arousal, weapon focus effect, memory accuracy, lineup identification, domestic disputes, police testimony, physiological arousal

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review