3. COLLECTING EVIDENCE

Question 1

Recognising E-fit faces

Bruce aim

Answer 1

See if there was a difference in our ability to recognise internal and external features of facial composites
Facial composites of celebrities

Question 2

Bruce method

Answer 2

Lab

Question 3

Bruce sample

Answer 3

Self selected

30 staff and students from Stirling Uni (M+F)

Question 4

Bruce design

Answer 4

Independent 
3 conditions:
1. internal + external
2. internal 
3. external
Given ten photos of celebs (targets) 
Match 40 composite images (4 for each target)

Question 5

Results from Bruce

Answer 5

No significant difference in accuracy between complete composite and external factors only (35% correct)
Internal factors not so accurate- 19.5% correct

Question 6

What do Bruces findings suggest

Answer 6

When witnesses are recalling internal features, we may not be able to trust accuracy

Question 7

Pros of Bruce

Answer 7

Lab= increased control
Independent- reduces DC
Standardised- replicable
Quantitative 
Useful applications

Question 8

Cons of Bruce

Answer 8

Small sample- reduced population validity
Reduced ecological validity- no consequences
Reduced task validity- using celebrities

Question 9

False confession

Kassin aim

Answer 9

Whether psychologically vulnerable people are more likely to make a false confession

Question 10

Kassin sample and design

Answer 10

79 undergraduates
Independent
Deceived into thinking the experiment was on reaction time

Question 11

Voluntary confession

Answer 11

No external pressure

Question 12

Coerced compliant confession

Answer 12

Had enough of questioning so confess

Question 13

Coerced internalisation confession

Answer 13

Persuaded that you committed a crime

Question 14

Kassin procedure

Answer 14

Ps tested individually with confederate
Told letters to type on computer- specifically told not to press ALT key, as it will ‘crash’ the computer
3 minted of pressing keys
Experimenter accuses P of pressing ALT key, confederate said they did when they didn’t (pressure)

Question 15

4 conditions for Kassin

Answer 15

1. high vulnerability- 67 letters per minute, accused of pressing ALT
2. high vulnerability- 67 letters, not accused
3. low vulnerability- slow, 43 letters per min, accused
4. low vulnerability- 43/min, not accused

Question 16

Kassin results

Answer 16

More typing errors in high vulnerability (stressful)
Compliance- least likely in condition 4, most likely in condition 1
Internalisation- 65% in condition 1 said they pressed it
Confabulation- main up details, 35% of condition 1 confabulated

Question 17

What do findings from Kassin suggest

Answer 17

Two factors cause false confessions:

1. stress
2. incriminating evidence

Question 18

Pros of Kassin

Answer 18

Large sample- 79 undergraduates 
Quantitative and qual data
Independent- reduced DC
Useful applications- remove stress
High control
Standardised

Question 19

Cons of Kassin

Answer 19

Undergraduates- not generalisable
Unethical- deceived + high levels of stress
Reduced ecological validity- no consequence

Question 20

Standard police interview

Answer 20

Free recall about event
Followed by specific questions on information gathered
Not standardised

Question 21

Cognitive interview (Fisher)

Answer 21

Structured, standardised interview 
Four stages:
1. context reinstatement- setting scene 
2.report everything
3. recalling in different temporal order
4. recall from different perspectives

Question 22

Testing the CIT

Fisher, aim

Answer 22

Investigate usefulness of CIT compared with standard interview techniques

Question 23

Fisher sample

Answer 23

16 detectives

Miami police department

Question 24

Fisher method

Answer 24

Field experiment

Question 25

Fisher phase 1

Answer 25

Detectives recorded number of interviews using standard interview techniques (burglary and robbery crimes) 16 split in half- one group trained in CIT (experimental group) other was not (control)

Question 26

Fisher phase 2

Answer 26

Post training, more interviews were recorded for same crimes as P1 Interview analysed by a team (unaware of condition) Identified how much info was obtained and match it to corroborative evidence

Question 27

Fisher results

Answer 27

CIT trained officers gathered 47% more info CIT produced 63% more information than control group CIT gather more information and to a higher level of accuracy- therefore train police to use CIT method

Question 28

Fisher pros

Answer 28

Increased ecological validity- real police | Useful applications- CIT

Question 29

Cons of Fisher

Answer 29

Lacks generalisability- only experimented on petty crimes | Reduced control

Question 30

PEACE

Answer 30

``` Prep + planning Engage + explain Account, clarification + challenge Closure Evaluation ```

Question 31

Reviewing CIT Memon and Higham Effectiveness of CIT components

Answer 31

Context reinstatement most effective Recalling in different temporal orders is not beneficial= fabrication Most effective recall= forward order then reverse

Question 32

M+H | Comparing interviews

Answer 32

Not possible to accurately compare Not standardised Compare CIT to structured interviews= only difference is lack of cognitive elements

Question 33

M+H | Quality of training

Answer 33

Police sergeant should deliver training- 'one of them' Base line measures before and after- measure improvements Training should be intensive- 2 days, followed by practice

Question 34

M+H | Conclusions

Answer 34

More research needs to be done to see why CIT is better than standardised interviewing