eye witness Flashcards
things that effect enoding memory
inattention, unexpectdeness
recall memory
- a type of retrival
-reporting details of a witnessed
event
Recognition Memory
reporting whether what is
currently being viewed/heard is the same as the
previously seen person/item of interest
estimatre varibale vs system varisblr
Independent Variables (field)
◦ Estimator Variables → present at the time of the crime
◦ Cannot be changed
◦ Examples: age of witness, lighting, presence of weapon, was
witness intoxicated?
System Variables → can be manipulated to increase or
decrease eyewitness accuracy
(fied and lab)
◦ Can be changed, under the control of the justice system to
change
◦ Example: structure of interview, type of lineup procedure
Eyewitness Research: Dependant Variables
- revall of crime/event
- recall of perpetrator
-Recognition of Perpetrator
recall analysis
in eye witness resrarch
- Amount of info
- Type of info
- Accuracy of info
Issues with Current Interview Techniques
Officers commonly interrupt witnesses
Officers ask short, specific questions
Officers ask questions in a random order
Contamination of co-witnesses can occur
◦ Memory Conformity: what one witness reports influences what the other
witness reports
Officers ask questions that are ‘leading’ or suggestive
can memories change when you try to recall them
order of events can change
u can choose to embelish one aspect
can forget aspects of the event
can recongiton memeory be used for weapons and items and voices
yes
Loftus & Palmer (1974) leading/suggestive q study
Participants watched a video of a car accident
Faster speeds reported → smashed
Slower speeds reported → bumped, contacted
weeks later asked about glass shards - only say yes if word was smashed
Loftus (1975) three-minute video of 8 demonstrators disrupting a class
Half of participants → ‘Was the leader of the 12
demonstrators male?’
Other half → ‘Was the leader of the 4 demonstrators male?’
One week later → How many demonstrators were there?
First half → average 8.85
Second half → average 6.4
maybe bc memory is being changed, maybe bc we know misinfo but think we were wrong
Misinformation Effect
Witness presented with inaccurate information after an event will
incorporate that misinformation into subsequent recall
Misinformation Acceptance Hypothesis:
witnesses guess at the answer they
think the experimenter wants
Source Misattribution Hypothesis:
accurate and inaccurate memories both
recalled – however, witnesses do not remember where each came from
Memory Impairment Hypothesis
original memory is replaced or altered, original
memory is no longer accessible
does misinfomraiton effect only work when there is authority
no - it works when there is just other witnesses
Standard Cognitive Interview
Reinstating
the Context
Reporting
Everything
Reversing
Order
Changing
Perspective
Enhanced Cognitive Interview
- Rapport Building
- Supportive interviewer
behavior - Transfer of control
- Focused Retrieval
- Witness-Compatible
Questioning
are cogngitve interview effective and common
yes effective but both equally
not common bc time consuimg and need certain envrinmnet
still good to use certain parts tho
Describing a Perpetrator
Hair and clothing are most
common descriptors
Witnesses to staged crimes → average 7.35 descriptors
Witnesses to real crimes → average 3.94 descriptors
why is wriring things worse than speaking
cannot write as fast as u can speak so u miss some stuff
what things r usually accurate
gender, hair colours, hair length, age, height, complextion, type of top
what is usually not accuarte
weight, eye colour, shoes
fratural appraoch
breaking things into parts/their features and putting it back together
- dont do this for faces unless have ASD
Similarity-to-suspect strategy
Matches lineup members to
suspect’s appearance
Match-to-description strategy
Distractors have features that
were described in initial
description
Fair Lineup
Suspect does not stand out
from distractors
Default values in a lineup
sex, race, etc.
problem w similarity-to-suspect stratgey
could be hard to pivk out if they all look the same
Foil Identification →
can happen with either
target-present or target-absent
◦ Known to police - the incorrect person will not
be prosecuted
◦ Is the witness’ memory credible?
False Rejection →
may result in guilty suspect
going free
False Identification →
innocent suspect could
be prosecuted
◦ Most serious type of identification error
Simultaneous Lineup:
all lineup members presented at the same time
◦ Relative judgement: members are compared to one another
issue for target absent
person who looks most like the idea
Sequential Lineup
lineup members presented serially to witness
◦ Absolute judgement: members are compared to the witness’ memory of the
perpetrator
Lindsay & Wells (1985) findings abt target absent
shows sequential better for target absent
University students watched
video-taped theft
Asked to identify perpetrator
from 6 photos
Independent Variables
◦ Target → absent or present
◦ Procedure → simultaneous
or sequential
Does order matter? Where do we place the suspect?
we look left to right so foil in the left choosing more bc looked at first
Alternative Formats
Photo arrays: quick, portable, static, less
anxiety for witness
Video-recorded lineups: can view behavior, can pause + zoom
Showup: only one suspect is presented
to the witness - absolute judgment
Walk-By: naturalistic, police bring
witness to where suspect is likely to be
Lineup Biases
Fair Lineup: Suspect does not
stand out from distractors
Biased Lineup: the person the
police suspect is obvious in some
way
◦ It is obvious to the witness who the
police want them to pick
Foil bias
◦ Suspect is the only lineup member
who matches the initial description
Clothing bias
◦ Suspect is the only lineup member
wearing clothing similar to perp
Instruction bias
◦ Police fail to mention that suspect
may not be present
is it good to do multiple lineups for the same crime
yes
Eyewitness Research
Independent Variables
◦ Estimator Variables → present at the time of the crime
◦ Cannot be changed
◦ Examples: age of witness, lighting, presence of weapon, was
witness intoxicated?
- lighting at time of crime
◦ System Variables → can be manipulated to increase or
decrease eyewitness accuracy
◦ Can be changed, under the control of the justice system to
change
◦ Example: structure of interview, type of lineup procedure
- present ot absent target lineup
- type of interview
- dif kind of lineup
Estimator Variable: Age (eyewitness)
Older adults less likely to make correct
identification and correct rejection
when compared to younger adults
18 meh 40 wow amazing 60 sucks
Estimator Variable: Race
Cross-race effect: witnesses remember faces
of people of their own race with greater
accuracy than they remember faces of people
of other races
Ex. Indigenous witnesses will have more
accurate memory for Indigenous perps over
White perps
Cross-race effect can be larger when witness
is intoxicated
Hypotheses that explain the Cross-Race Effect
◦ Attitudes
◦ People who are less prejudiced are better at
distinguishing between faces among races
◦ Physiognomic Homogeneity
◦ Some races have less variability in their faces
Interracial Contact
- only one supported by reesearch
◦ The more contact you have with other races, the better
you will be able to identify them
- solution = more diversity from an ea,ry age
Estimator Variable:
Weapon Focus
When a weapon is involved, witness’ attention
tends to focus on the weapon rather than the
perpetrator
◦ Affects memory for the crime and the
perpetrator’s appearance
Cue-Utilization Hypothesis: when emotional
arousal increases, attentional capacity decreases
◦ Limited support for this hypothesis
Weapons are unusual and attract witness’
attention
Pickel (1999)
Is weapon focus due to
unusualness?
Independent Variables
◦ Setting
◦ Threat
Dependent Variable
◦ Memory for the perp’s
appearance
Less accurate description
when at baseball game when
compared to shooting range
Carlson & Carlson (2012)
(stickers)
Will some other sort of unusualness offset weapon focus?
Independent Variables
◦ Method of aggression → fists, beer bottle, gun
◦ Facial distinctiveness → sticker on perp’s face vs. no sticker
Dependent Variable → accuracy of memory for perpetrator
Results
◦ When no sticker: worse accuracy when gun was present
◦ When sticker present: better accuracy than usual when gun is involved
