eye witness

Question 1

things that effect enoding memory

Answer 1

inattention, unexpectdeness

Question 2

recall memory

Answer 2

• a type of retrival

-reporting details of a witnessed
event

Question 3

Recognition Memory

Answer 3

reporting whether what is
currently being viewed/heard is the same as the
previously seen person/item of interest

Question 4

estimatre varibale vs system varisblr

Answer 4

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

Question 5

Eyewitness Research: Dependant Variables

Answer 5

• revall of crime/event
• recall of perpetrator

-Recognition of Perpetrator

Question 6

recall analysis

Answer 6

in eye witness resrarch

• Amount of info
• Type of info
• Accuracy of info

Question 7

Issues with Current Interview Techniques

Answer 7

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

Question 8

can memories change when you try to recall them

Answer 8

order of events can change

u can choose to embelish one aspect

can forget aspects of the event

Question 9

can recongiton memeory be used for weapons and items and voices

Answer 9

yes

Question 10

Loftus & Palmer (1974) leading/suggestive q study

Answer 10

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

Question 11

Loftus (1975) three-minute video of 8 demonstrators disrupting a class

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Misinformation Effect

Answer 12

Witness presented with inaccurate information after an event will
incorporate that misinformation into subsequent recall

Question 13

Misinformation Acceptance Hypothesis:

Answer 13

witnesses guess at the answer they
think the experimenter wants

Question 14

Source Misattribution Hypothesis:

Answer 14

accurate and inaccurate memories both
recalled – however, witnesses do not remember where each came from

Question 15

Memory Impairment Hypothesis

Answer 15

original memory is replaced or altered, original
memory is no longer accessible

Question 16

does misinfomraiton effect only work when there is authority

Answer 16

no - it works when there is just other witnesses

Question 17

Standard Cognitive Interview

Answer 17

Reinstating
the Context

Reporting
Everything

Reversing
Order

Changing
Perspective

Question 18

Enhanced Cognitive Interview

Answer 18

• Rapport Building
• Supportive interviewer
  behavior
• Transfer of control
• Focused Retrieval
• Witness-Compatible
  Questioning

Question 19

are cogngitve interview effective and common

Answer 19

yes effective but both equally

not common bc time consuimg and need certain envrinmnet

still good to use certain parts tho

Question 20

Describing a Perpetrator

Answer 20

Hair and clothing are most
common descriptors

Witnesses to staged crimes → average 7.35 descriptors

Witnesses to real crimes → average 3.94 descriptors

Question 21

why is wriring things worse than speaking

Answer 21

cannot write as fast as u can speak so u miss some stuff

Question 22

what things r usually accurate

Answer 22

gender, hair colours, hair length, age, height, complextion, type of top

Question 23

what is usually not accuarte

Answer 23

weight, eye colour, shoes

Question 24

fratural appraoch

Answer 24

breaking things into parts/their features and putting it back together

• dont do this for faces unless have ASD

Question 25

Similarity-to-suspect strategy

Answer 25

Matches lineup members to
suspect’s appearance

Question 26

Match-to-description strategy

Answer 26

Distractors have features that
were described in initial
description

Question 27

Fair Lineup

Answer 27

Suspect does not stand out
from distractors

Question 28

Default values in a lineup

Answer 28

sex, race, etc.

Question 29

problem w similarity-to-suspect stratgey

Answer 29

could be hard to pivk out if they all look the same

Question 30

Foil Identification →

Answer 30

can happen with either
target-present or target-absent
◦ Known to police - the incorrect person will not
be prosecuted
◦ Is the witness’ memory credible?

Question 31

False Rejection →

Answer 31

may result in guilty suspect
going free

Question 32

False Identification →

Answer 32

innocent suspect could
be prosecuted
◦ Most serious type of identification error

Question 33

Simultaneous Lineup:

Answer 33

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

Question 34

Sequential Lineup

Answer 34

lineup members presented serially to witness
◦ Absolute judgement: members are compared to the witness’ memory of the
perpetrator

Question 35

Lindsay & Wells (1985) findings abt target absent

Answer 35

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

Question 36

Does order matter? Where do we place the suspect?

Answer 36

we look left to right so foil in the left choosing more bc looked at first

Question 37

Alternative Formats

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Lineup Biases

Answer 38

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

Question 39

is it good to do multiple lineups for the same crime

Answer 39

yes

Question 40

Eyewitness Research

Answer 40

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

Question 41

Estimator Variable: Age (eyewitness)

Answer 41

Older adults less likely to make correct
identification and correct rejection
when compared to younger adults

18 meh 40 wow amazing 60 sucks

Question 42

Estimator Variable: Race

Answer 42

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

Question 43

Estimator Variable:
Weapon Focus

Answer 43

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

Question 44

Pickel (1999)

Answer 44

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

Question 45

Carlson & Carlson (2012)

(stickers)

Answer 45

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