Interesting Psychology: Open Carry & The Weapons Effect

[TexasTornado]

People oft debate that we should OC based on the notion that an exposed weapon will deter acts of violence, but how accurate are the assumptions we make about OC?

Sudies in Social Psychology strongly suggest that when people are agitated, the presence of a weapon object is correlated with more aggressive behavior than non weapon objects such as tennis rackets; this phenomenon has been coined as "The Weapons Effect" and is well documented both in laboratory and field experiments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge ... ons-effect

What are your thoughts based on this research?

[Jusme]

People oft debate that we should OC based on the notion that an exposed weapon will deter acts of violence, but how accurate are the assumptions we make about OC?

Sudies in Social Psychology strongly suggest that when people are agitated, the presence of a weapon object is correlated with more aggressive behavior than non weapon objects such as tennis rackets; this phenomenon has been coined as "The Weapons Effect" and is well documented both in laboratory and field experiments.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ge ... ons-effect

What are your thoughts based on this research?

Poppycock!

Without knowing a person's proclivity towards, aggression, anger, violence, etc. beforehand, introducing certain visual stimuli, and trying to draw conclusions, is not noteworthy. The respondents, may have been war veterans, who were simply more stimulated by guns, or they may have had bad experiences, with people, in their past who misused guns. Random tests, without a full mental/emotional history on each individual, has been proven to be not viable. The very fact that they are quoting tests from the mid 60's, and 70's should indicate that no further testing was done, or that any further testing with more advanced parameters, was inconclusive. The very fact that the reporter, stated, that guns kill more people than spiders and snakes, indicates, that he believes inanimate objects are responsible for deaths. This is simply a result, from a preconceived agenda. JMHO

[WTR]

Psychology Today is not a peer reviewed journal which is intended for Professionals. It is known for puff and inaccurate articles intended for the uneducated and ill informed.

[crazy2medic]

I open carry, I will continue to open carry unless a .07 sign is present at which point I'll cover up until my business with that business is concluded.
My personal experience I have found that few people even notice, and most don't care, I have had a couple of conversations with complete strangers that somehow failed to notice the rather large 1911 on my left hip, one conversation went on for over 20 minutes before the guy saw my pistol.
I would think that few people would want to start an altercation with another person that is obviously armed simply because you really don't know what the armed person might do, an armed society is a polite society!

My 2 cents

[JustSomeOldGuy]

Sounds like their entire test panel was composed of folks with 'emotional intelligence' issues.....

[treadlightly]

"The finger pulls the trigger, but the trigger may be pulling the finger."

The old pull my finger joke? Really?

Did Psychology Today just make a Freudian pun?

Table manners, please!

[Soccerdad1995]

By this logic, disagreements among members of the military should be much more violent than among other groups of people of similar characteristics. Having served for 4 years in the military, I didn't find that to be true. Alcohol frequently led to escalations of disagreements, but that was also true in my non-military environments.

Also, we should be seeing fist fights among cops all the time. I also doubt that is happening.

[oljames3]

I open carry, I will continue to open carry unless a .07 sign is present at which point I'll cover up until my business with that business is concluded.
My personal experience I have found that few people even notice, and most don't care, I have had a couple of conversations with complete strangers that somehow failed to notice the rather large 1911 on my left hip, one conversation went on for over 20 minutes before the guy saw my pistol.
I would think that few people would want to start an altercation with another person that is obviously armed simply because you really don't know what the armed person might do, an armed society is a polite society!

My 2 cents

I feel it is beneficial to consider how my actions affect others, but I don't carry or not carry based on what other people think. I don't carry concealed or openly based on what other people think. I carry openly because my deliberation has led me to believe that it is the best way for me to protect myself and those for whom I am responsible. Period. I'm just living my life and trying to be a peace with all.

[treadlightly]

Ok, here's the proof of bad science. Note this:

In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle.

The writer is an idiot. The confederacy didn't have any rifles chambered in .303 British, which is what I assume he's talking about.

An accurately portrayed confederate would likely have an Enfield pattern rifle. I think those were the most common.

In any case, by dragging the Confederacy (kindly doff your hats) into this I proclaim my trigger has been pulled. I need my safe space now.

[Jay2121]

The article is worthless. I have opened carried since day 2 and have had only positive feedback save one neutral response When a person quietly said "John Wayne..." as he passed. He was dressed in a cowboy hat, cowboy boots and looked like he walked off a movie set ...lol. Most do not notice. A handgun is a great equalizer people good and bad realize that it makes them think. I will continue to open carry as it was a hard won victory and is our right. Most people that come up to me to discuss OC are afraid to OC nothing more nothing less. They ask if people get mad, give me dirty looks, turn away as I walk up, are you nervous they ask?? No, no, no, no, I answer. "I don't know if I could do it "comes the response. I look at them in disbelief and that feeling has not lessened for me. Oh well. A story: I was helping my wife load the car with groceries one night. we were parked way out, new car and all, anyway I notice two people in a truck watching us as we loaded the vehicle. The minute I turned my weapon side to them the truck started and it pulled away. Coincidence, maybe, but they were scoping us out and I intentionally kept weapon side toward car for the 3-4 minutes we were loading up. Did not mention to wife as we were loading but she quietly noticed the same truck and once we entered the car we shared our stories. CC or OC is your choice. As for the now two others I have seen in the last year and a half doing OC , thank you.

[TexasTornado]

Please note, this effect is ONLY documented when subjects are already in a state of agitation. It has not been found to apply when just having normal conversations or when not already otherwise in an agitated/angered state.

Personally the reporter's opinions and interjections are completely irrelevant to me, it was just the first article I found on the topics presented in class. The relevant information in my opinion is the findings of the studies themselves and the idea that violence, once initiated, may escalate more quickly with a pistol visible.

[Jusme]

Like any "study" where the conclusion ids already cemented, testing can be skewed to be sure that the desired result is met. It could be "proven" with the right parameters, and testing procedures, that pigs are aerodynamic, and should be the best choice to ride for aerial tours.

[TexasTornado]

Ok, here's the proof of bad science. Note this:

In one field experiment,[2] a confederate driving a pickup truck purposely remained stalled at a traffic light for 12 seconds to see whether the motorists trapped behind him would honk their horns (the measure of aggression). The truck contained either a .303-calibre military rifle in a gun rack mounted to the rear window, or no rifle.

The writer is an idiot. The confederacy didn't have any rifles chambered in .303 British, which is what I assume he's talking about.

An accurately portrayed confederate would likely have an Enfield pattern rifle. I think those were the most common.

In any case, by dragging the Confederacy (kindly doff your hats) into this I proclaim my trigger has been pulled. I need my safe space now.

A confederate in an experiment is someone, disguised as a participant or non involved party, who is working for/with the experimenter. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Confederacy or the Bloody Red Coats.

[oljames3]

Please note, this effect is ONLY documented when subjects are already in a state of agitation. It has not been found to apply when just having normal conversations or when not already otherwise in an agitated/angered state.

Personally the reporter's opinions and interjections are completely irrelevant to me, it was just the first article I found on the topics presented in class. The relevant information in my opinion is the findings of the studies themselves and the idea that violence, once initiated, may escalate more quickly with a pistol visible.

Point considered and rejected as immaterial to my decision to carry openly. Another person's potential or apparent agitation would increase my awareness, but not alter my method of carrying.

[Soccerdad1995]

Please note, this effect is ONLY documented when subjects are already in a state of agitation. It has not been found to apply when just having normal conversations or when not already otherwise in an agitated/angered state.

Personally the reporter's opinions and interjections are completely irrelevant to me, it was just the first article I found on the topics presented in class. The relevant information in my opinion is the findings of the studies themselves and the idea that violence, once initiated, may escalate more quickly with a pistol visible.

One problem with this type of study is that it can lead to very dangerous conclusions. If the presence of guns causes a bad situation to get worse, then maybe we should stop sending police out to domestic violence calls? Or we could just require all police officers to conceal carry. Don't get me started about gun shops / gun ranges. Just yesterday I got a work e-mail that made me extremely angry right before I went to the range. I was definitely agitated, but by some miracle, I managed to not go on a shooting rampage despite the sight of a wall full of firearms. I then discovered that my brand new Walther PPQ has an issue (failure to lock back on an empty magazine). That irritated me even more. And yet, the walk out of there was somehow uneventful, despite once again seeing a large number of weapons on clear display.

By the way, Walther was very quick to send me a pre-paid shipping label. Hopefully, they will get the issue addressed quickly.