Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > For. 2 Making a Case > Flashcards

For. 2 Making a Case Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Bruce - BACKGROUND?

E-fit faces

A

Delay, our cue dependent memory and individual differences in memory ability affect facial memory
Composite photos have a limited number of face shapes/features and assumes that we recognise faces by breaking them down into parts
E-fit is hollistic and has a large database

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bruce - AIM?

E-fit faces

A

Investigate recognisability of internal and external features in facial recognition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Bruce - SAMPLE (exp.1)?

E-fit faces

A

30 (15m / 15f)
staff/students from University
Independent measures - 3 conditions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Bruce - SAMPLE (exp.2)?

E-fit faces

A

48 undergraduates (21m / 27f)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bruce - PROCEDURE (exp.1)?

E-fit faces

A

3 conditions: complete composites, internal features, external features
shown 10 celeb photos and 40 composite (e-fit) images
told to match the celebs to their e-fit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bruce - PROCEDURE (exp.2)?

E-fit faces

A

2 conditions: easy (all different) and difficult (all similar)
photo array of celeb faces
matched with composites (external or internal) with distractor faces

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bruce - RESULTS (exp.1)?

E-fit faces

A

35% of complete and external features composites were matched correctly
19.5% of internal features composites were matched correctly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Bruce - RESULTS (exp.2)?

E-fit faces

A

42% of external features composites were identified correctly
24% of internal features composites were identified correctly
[Participants in internal condition performed above chance level
Participants in complete and external features condition performed equally well]

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Bruce - CONCLUSIONS?

E-fit faces

A

Shows external features are more important for facial recognition
Faces processed holistically
New facial software allows faces to be changed hollistically

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Bruce - EVALUATION?

E-fit faces

A

Exp.2 has larger sample (80) = more reliable
Standardisation = confidence in results
Viewing slides = lacks eco. validity
Lack of stress = more ethical
Useful = implications for eyewitness/court etc.
Reductionist - doesn’t consider ind. differ.
Psy. science - standardised/controls, recording eye movements = scientific

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Loftus - BACKGROUND?

Factors influencing identification

A

Factors that influence witness accuracy:
delay
stress and arousal (eg level of violence)
weapon focus effect

leading questions
line-up instructions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Loftus - AIM?

Factors influencing identification

A

Support weapon focus effect when witnessing a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Loftus - SAMPLE?

Factors influencing identification

A

36 students from Washington University
Aged 18-31
Half recruited by advertisements (paid $3.50)
Half were psychology students (given extra credit)
Told were in experiment for ‘proactive interference’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Loftus - PROCEDURE?

Factors influencing identification

A

Shown 18 slides of man queuing at a restaurant
Control: Man gives cheque to cashier
Experimental: person pulls gun on cashier
Each slide: 1.5seconds
Recognition of man tested - shown 12 photos (line-up) and rated how confident they were and given questionnaire

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Loftus - RESULTS?

Factors influencing identification

A

No difference in answers to questionnaire
Cheque condition: 39% correct identification (2.4secs looking at cheque)
Gun condition: 11% correct identification (3.7secs looking at gun)
No difference in confidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Loftus - CONCLUSIONS?

Factors influencing identification

A

Participants spent longer looking at gun so had more difficulty recognising supect from line-up as more time was spent looking at weapon
Witnesses can be unreliable
Crime involving a weapon affects a witness’ ability to recognise a suspect’s face

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Loftus - EVALUATION?

Factors influencing identification

A

Big age range = celeb familiarity would differ
Small sample = not reliable
Standardised, lab = reliable
Eco. validity - lab setting but photo array mimics police line-up
Useful - informs police/courts about witness reliability
Psy. science - standardised, meets criteria

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Fisher - BACKGROUND?

Cognitive interview

A

Standard interview produces unreliable results in memory
Cognitive interview stimulates cues (conttext) to maximise retrieval of memory
Cognitive interview:
-context reinstatement
-report everything
-change perspective
-change order

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Fisher - AIM?

Cognitive interview

A

Compare performance of detectives with and without Cognitive Interview training

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Fisher - SAMPLE?

Cognitive interview

A

16 detectives
Florida police
7 - cognitive interview course
9 - untrained controls

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Fisher - PROCEDURE?

Cognitive interview

A

Detectives tape recorded interviews using standard interview techniques
2 groups formed - 7 (originally 10) trained in cognitive interview and 6 rest were untrained controls
Training was 4x 1hour sessions

Re-interviews by 7 trained and 6 controls

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Fisher - RESULTS?

Cognitive interview

A

47% more information recorded after training
6 (of 7) did better after training
63% more information recorded than control
94% accuracy with witness statements

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Fisher - EVALUATION?

Cognitive interview

A

Small sample = unreliable
Detectives experienced in robbery = not generalisable
Ethnocentric - Florida police

Nature - CI techniques can be learnt
Useful - Improves memory retrieval from witnesses; training relatively easy to give

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Fisher - CONCLUSIONS?

Cognitive interview

A

Cognitive interview is effective

Training is relatively easy to provide

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Mann - BACKGROUND?

Detecting lies

A

Checks and balances:
-caution given on arrest (you do not need to say anything…)
-defendant presumed not guilty
-Police and Criminal Evidence Act - (controls police procedures) - all interviews recorded with 3 copies - police, solicitor and court
Police need to determine if the suspect is telling the truth
Heavily influences if they arrest and charge suspect
Important to see if police can accurately detect when an individual is deceiving them
Police’s ‘gut feeling’ is not reliable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Mann - AIM?

Detecting lies

A

Test police officer’s ability to distinguish truth and lie during interviews with suspects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Mann - SAMPLE?

Detecting lies

A

99 Kent police officers (75% male)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Mann - PROCEDURE?

Detecting lies

A

Judged truthfulness of 54 real police interview videos
14 suspects - head and torso shown
Further evidence used to determine if truth or lie
Participants fill out questionnaire:
-truth or lie
-confidence (1-7)
-behavioural cues (to detect lie)

28
Q

Mann - RESULTS?

Detecting lies

A

65% accuracy detecting truth and lie
Weak positive correlation - increasing experience and detecting truth and lies (0.19)
Cues - direction of gaze, fidgeting, vagueness, contradicting story

29
Q

Mann - CONCLUSIONS?

Detecting lies

A

Police officers reasonably good at detecting lies
Can’t compare to general public (control) - unethical (real police interviews)
More experience = better at detecting lies
Officers good at detecting lies relied on story cues (inconsistencies) - not body language etc
Police officer training may improve performance (what to look for)

30
Q

Mann - EVALUATION?

Detecting lies

A

-

31
Q

Inbau - BACKGROUND?

Interrogation techniques

A

Purpose of interrogation is to extract confession
Interrogations have accusatory tone (interviews don’t)
Investigator says there is no doubt they’re guilty
Police services use interrogating manuals - Inbau (American)

32
Q

Inbau - Direct positive confrontation?

Interrogation techniques

A

Suspect told they are thought to have committed crime

33
Q

Inbau - Theme development?

Interrogation techniques

A

Suspect offered chance to shift blame away from them
Suggestions/justifications offered for what happened (minimising suspect’s guilt)
Showing sympathy makes it easier to admit guilt

34
Q

Inbau - Handling denials?

Interrogation techniques

A

Should never be allowed to deny guilt

Interrupt denials to prevent suspect getting psychological advantage

35
Q

Inbau - Overcoming objections?

Interrogation techniques

A

Suspect often gives reason why they can’t have committed crime
Ignore them - they’ll give up trying

36
Q

Inbau - Procurement/retention of suspect’s attention?

Interrogation techniques

A

Reinforce sincerity to ensure suspect is receptive

Keep good eye contact and use first names

37
Q

Inbau - Handling suspect’s passive mood?

Interrogation techniques

A

Suspect will become quiet and listen
Focus on distress of victim
If suspect cries, infer guilt

38
Q

Inbau - Presenting alternative question?

Interrogation techniques

A 
Pose 'alternative question' 
2 choices (accounts of crime) - both are incriminating but 1 allows for suspect to explain why they committed the crime
39
Q

Inbau - Having suspect orally relate details of offence?

Interrogation techniques

A

Admit guilt in front of witnesses

40
Q

Inbau - Converting oral to written confession?

Interrogation techniques

A

Document their confession and get them to sign it

Avoids retracting it later

41
Q

Inbau - PACE?

Interrogation techniques

A

Police and Criminal Evidence Act (1984)

  • can’t use deception or false evidence
  • less interviews at night
  • interviews recorded (jurors can listen to make up their own mind if interviewed appropriately)
  • suspect more likely to consult a solicitor before interrogation
42
Q

Inbau - EVALUATION?

Interrogation techniques

A

-

43
Q

Gudjohnsson - BACKGROUND?

False confessions

A 
False confession = true criminal escapes justice (innocent in prison or executed)
Types:
-voluntary: no external pressure (desire to be famous, guilt, protect real criminal)
-coerced compliant: only way out of bad situation (avoid threat)
-coerced internalised: come to believe they're guilty (memories fragile, stressful interrogation) - low IQ, young and suggestible at risk
Interrogation circumstances (situation) and suspect's suggestibility (individual) influence
44
Q

Gudjohnsson - AIM?

False confessions

A

Document case with false confession of youth who was distressed and susceptible to interrogative pressure

45
Q

Gudjohnsson - SAMPLE?

False confessions

A 
Case study
'FC' - 17 year old youth
Accused of 2 murders
Average intelligence 
No mental illness
46
Q

Gudjohnsson - CASE?

False confessions

A

1987 - 2 elderly women murdered in their home - money taken and sexually assaulted
FC arrested due to inconsistencies with his movements and spending more money than usual - no forensic evidence
Denied access to solicitor and interviewed at length
Confessed and wrote statement in prison
Released after a year when someone else confessed

47
Q

Gudjohnsson - INTERVIEW?

False confessions

A

First interview - 14hours (with breaks)
Denied being near the scene but they accused him of lying - eventually agreed
Questioning was leading and accusatory - suggested he was sexually impotent
Removed confession the next day - then re-confessed about failure with women relationships
3 more interviews

48
Q

Gudjohnsson - PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION?

False confessions

A 
Examined by psychiatrists in prison 
No evidence of mental health
94 IQ
Extrovert personality
High suggestibility on Gudjohnsson Suggestibility Scale
49
Q

Gudjohnsson - CONCLUSIONS?

False confessions

A

Coerced compliant false confession
Gave into pressure to escape interview situation
False confessions could happen to anyone - not just mentally ill or low IQ

50
Q

Offender profiling?

A

Used by forensic services to predict characteristics of an unknown suspect
Used to catch serial bomber in New York (1940-1956) - profile developed

51
Q

Top down approach?

A

VICAP created by FBI - filled with details about offenders
Used to identify similarities between crimes committed by the same offender
Case compared against others to see similar patterns - modus operandi (method of operation)
Nomothetic: study of group behaviour to establish general rules of behaviour
‘MO’ helps identify motive and characteristics of criminal
Used to catch Ted Bundy (serial killer)

52
Q

Organised and disorganised?

A

Roy Hazelwood and John Douglas extended top down approach after interviewing numerous murderers
Criminals fit into 2 categories - organised and disorganised
Organised: orderly crime scene, higher IQ, bring weapons to crime scene
Disorganised: disorderly crime scene, lower IQ, less controlled

53
Q

Canter - AIM?

Organised/disorganised

A

Test reliability of organised/disorganised typologies

54
Q

Canter - METHOD?

Organised/disorganised

A

Content analysis - 100 cases (serial killers from USA)

See if features of each typology (organised/disorganised) would be consistent

55
Q

Canter - RESULTS?

Organised/disorganised

A

Twice as many disorganised than organised crime scenes - easier to identify or more common
Organised behaviours - body concealed (70%) and sexual activity (75%)
Disorganised - rape (66%)
Statistical analysis - no significant difference between organised and disorganised

56
Q

Canter - CONCLUSION?

Organised/disorganised

A

All crimes have an organised element to them (killers were not caught after 3 killings)
Better to look at individual personality differences between offenders

57
Q

Canter - BACKGROUND?

Bottom up approach

A

Offender profiling in UK developed by David Canter
Integrated psychological concepts with investigation techniques
Developed alternative offender profiling method based on evidence
Idiosyncratic: Developing a profile from the details of the crime scene (not generalised typology) - focuses on nature of each individual case
Geographical profiling: locate probable home location of a serial offender from the distribution of crimes on a map - use Dragnet (computer program)

58
Q

Canter - AIM?

Bottom up approach

A

Identify behaviour patterns of sexual offenders (from offences similarities)

59
Q

Canter - METHOD?

Bottom up approach

A

Content analysis - 66 sexual offences (27 offenders)

Used to find which offence variables (out of 33) were linked to potential behaviour characteristics

60
Q

Canter - RESULTS?

Bottom up approach

A

5 offence variables (prominent in 66 offences):
-rape
-no reaction to victim
-impersonal language
-surprise attack
-victim’s clothing disturbed
=different behaviour patterns for each offender

61
Q

Canter - CONCLUSIONS?

Bottom up approach

A

Supports bottom up approach
Different patterns for different offenders - no ‘type’ of rapist
Certain behaviours common in all sexual offences (similarities between offenders)
Individual profile required for a case - different patterns

62
Q

John Duffy - BACKGROUND?

railway rapist

A

24 sexual assaults and 3 murders near railways (London)
1982-1986
First attacks rapes, then murders
John Duffy with accomplice David Mulcahy
Bottom up profiling brought Duffy to attention of police

63
Q

John Duffy - PROFILE?

railway rapist

A

Predicted:

  • kept souvenirs from the crime (33 door keys from the victim)
  • aggressive under the influence of drugs or alcohol (violent and attacked wife)
  • lived in local area of London (only suspect to live locally in Kilburn)
  • worked on railway (did)
64
Q

Rachel Nikell - BACKGROUND?

A 
Murdered in 1992 - violent attack on Wimbledon common
Offender profiler (Paul Britton) helped (used top down offender profiling)
65
Q

Rachel Nikell - PROFILE?

A 
Predicted:
-young man
-difficulties relating to women (single)
-average intelligence (brutal, disorganised crime)
-unskilled occupation
-walking distance of Wimbledon Common
Profile aired on Crimewatch
66
Q

Rachel Nikell - COLIN STAGG?

A

Colin Stagg came up many times
No evidence to link him to crime
Covert observation - said something they thought linked him to the crime (arrested him)
David Canter defended him - psychological speculation and no evidence
Paul Britton (profiler) - disciplinary procedure from British Psychological Society

67
Q

Rachel Nikell - ROBERT NAPPER?

A 
With Colin Stagg in custody - another murder (Samantha Bisset)
Paul Briton (profiler) didn't link the 2 crimes - different perpetrator (wrong)
Fingerprint at crime scene - Robert Napper (admitted Samantha Bisset murder)
DNA analysis advances = present at Rachel Nikell murder
68
Q

Offender profiling - EVALUATION?

A

Rarely provides specific identity of offender
Does not solve the crime - indication of type of person
Police must not be blinded to other possibilities (criminals don’t always fit the profile)
Most useful for sadistic murders (sexual in nature) - not motivated by material gain (robbery)

Psychology (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions