**Lab Log** ------- ---------- **This section of the project page will include notes from subject testing, any exclusions, etc.** ***Note:** due to confusion about the scheduling, our protocol stated that trainees would be recruited from a classroom setting. confusion. Instead, they were engaged in other training scenarios. For consistency, all testing in the study will be conducted at the same stage of training.* ---------- November 7, 2013 ------------------------------- Daniel Simons and Michael Schlosser conducted the testing. The car was positioned on a wide sidewalk and grass area between two warehouse-style buildings. We spent the first 45 minutes making sure the setup looked right. We positioned the gun on the dashboard in a place that was visible throughout the interaction between the trainee and the driver and that wouldn't shift position when the glovebox opened and closed (we opened and slammed the glove box repeatedly until the gun no longer shifted position when it was closed). Due to the lighting in that location, the shiny barrel of the gun reflected light directly out the driver's window, so we rubbed some dirt onto the gun barrel do decrease the reflectiveness. Once the setting was finalized, we tested one pilot subject to make sure that we had the procedure down. We then began testing trainees one a time. As specified in the registered protocol, subjects were assigned to conditions in a randomly generated order. Subject #10 was inadvertently assigned to the Aggressive condition rather than the Compliant one. We caught the error right after that participant, and just swapped the condition assignments of Subjects 10 and 11 in order to keep the assignments to conditions constant (we reassigned #11 from Aggressive to Compliant). Each trainee "recruited" the next trainee for the study when they returned to their ongoing activities (this is a standard procedure for them, and we explained to each trainee why it was essential that they not talk about the study with other trainees). Mike Schlosser introduced the traffic stop scenario, and when the trainee either reacted to the presence of the gun or returned to the squad car to issue a ticket, Mike directed them to an adjacent building where Dan conducted the post-even questioning. All testing and questioning was conducted out of sight and hearing of other trainees. Half of the trainees were present in the morning, and half were present in the afternoon. We tested a total of 44 participants during the day. As it happened, exactly half were in the Compliant condition and half were in the Aggressive condition. Raw data from the day's testing have been uploaded to the data section of the project page.