Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Making a case > Flashcards

Making a case Flashcards

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

What study was Bruce’s study based on?

A

Sinha’s study.

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

Name 4 factors that involved when witnesses try to reconstruct a stranger’s face in Sinha’s study.

A
  1. The more familiar the face, the easier it is.
  2. Eyebrows and hairline are most important features.
  3. Different illuminations influence recognition.
  4. Motion of the face helps recognition.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What was the aim of Bruce’s study?

A

To investigate recognisability or internal and external features in facial recognition.

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

What are internal and external features?

A

Internal: Eyes, brows, nose and mouth.
External: Head shape, hairline and ears.

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

What was the design in Bruce’s study?

A

Independent measures.

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

How many experiments were there in Bruce’s study?

A

2.

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

What happened in the first experiment in Bruce’s study?

A

There were 3 conditions: complete composites (E-fit images), composites with only internal features and composites with only external features. Each face was shaven and there were no spectacles. All the participants had to match ten celebrities to the composites (depending on which condition).

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

What happened in the second experiment in Bruce’s study?

A

There was a photo array (actual photos) and the participants had to match the celebrity composites with the array. The task was made easy or hard and the composites were composed of either internal or external features.

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

What were the results for the first experiment in Bruce’s study?

A

Almost half of the composites in the complete and external composites conditions were sorted correctly. Internal composites were matched incorrectly more often.

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

What were the results in the second experiment in Bruce’s study?

A

External features were correctly identified more often.

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

What did Bruce conclude?

A

External features are more important for facial recognition because faces are processed holistically.

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

Evaluate Bruce’s study. State 6 things

A

Good implications for facial reconstructions.
Reliable as there was a lot of control over variables.
Useful.
Only uni students, not representative.
There could be demand characteristics.
Lacks EV as pictures were used.

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

What approach is Loftus’ study in?

A

Cognitive approach.

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

Define weapon focus…

A

The concentration of a witness’ attention on a weapon, preventing them from recalling other details of the scene.

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

How does Loftus’ study support the cognitive approach?

A

It supports the cognitive approach because it shows that people and input, store and retrieve data which is an assumption of the approach.

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

What was the aim of Loftus’ study?

A

To provide support for the weapon focus effect when witnessing a crime.

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

What was the method of Loftus’ study?

A

Laboratory.

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

Who were the participants in Loftus’ study?

A

36 Washington Uni students.

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

How were the participants recruited in Loftus’ study?

A

Half were recruited via an advertisement and half were volunteer psychology students.

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

What were the participants shown in Loftus’ study?

A

They were shown 18 slides of a series of events in a Taco restaurant.

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

What was the difference between the two groups in Loftus’ study?

A

One slide was different in each group. The control group were shown the customer hand over a cheque and the experimental group were shown the same person pull out a gun on the cashier.

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

What was the IV and DV in Loftus’ study?

A

IV: One of the 18 slides of a Taco restaurant.
DV: The recognition (by the participants) of the person.

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

How was the DV measured in Loftus’ study?

A

The DV was measured via a 20 item multiple choice questionnaire. Also by seeing photos and identifying the perpetrator.

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

What were the results in Loftus’ study? 3 things.

A

There was no significant difference between the 2 groups.
The perpetrator was correctly identified more in the control condition.
Eye fixation data showed that the participants in the experimental group looked at the gun for longer compared to the cheque.

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

What did Loftus conclude?

A

That the participants looked at the weapon for longer, making it harder to identify the perpetrator.

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

Evaluate Loftus’ study. State 4 things.

A

The study supported his previous research.
There was a high level of control making it reliable and replicable.
It is useful as it tells us that if a weapon is involved the person’s identification is less reliable.
Only uni students- ungeneralisable.
There could be demand characteristics so unvalid

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

What approach does Geiselman and Fisher’s study support?

A

The cognitive approach.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

How does Geiselman and Fisher’s study support the cognitive approach?

A

Because it shows that cognitive interviews are most effective when trying to get witnesses to recall a crime.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Name the 4 stages of a cognitive interview.

A
  1. Report everything.
  2. Context reinstatement.
  3. Recall in reverse order.
  4. Recall from a different perspective.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

State the aim of Geiselman and Fishers study.

A

The aim was to compare the effectiveness of three interview procedures for optimising eye witness memory.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What was the method and design of Geiselman and Fisher’s study?

A

Method: Laboratory.
Design: Independent measures.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

How was the sample selected?

A

By self selected and opportunity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, the participants were initially split into two groups. What were they? Who was in each group?

A

Interviewers and interviewees.
Interviewers: People with law related professions, e.g. policemen.
Interviewees: Undergraduate students.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, the interviewees were split into three groups. What were they?

A

Standard interview.
Cognitive interview.
Hypnosis interview.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What was the procedure in Geiselman and Fisher’s study?

A

The interviewees watched police training films of violent simulated crimes and they were then interviewed 48 hours later by the interviewers.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, what did the standard interview entail?

A

Each witness was asked to describe in their own words what they remembered.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, what did the hypnosis interview entail?

A

They were asked to describe in their own words everything they remembered before and after hypnosis.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, how were the results analysed?

A

The interviews were tape recorded and scored according to the amount of accurate information and then a stats test was performed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

In Geiselman and Fisher’s study, what were the results?

A

Cognitive and hypnosis got significantly higher scores.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Evaluate Geiselman and Fisher’s study? State 4 things.

A

Good applications for interviewing witnesses.
Not generalisable as there was a small sample.
Reliable as there were controls and it was in a lab.
Low EV due to simulated crimes.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What is the context of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

The defendant is innocent until proven guilty so the police must be trained to detect lies. They have to spot subtle body language clues such as looking down, putting their hand over their mouth etc.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What was the aim of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

To investigate the behaviour of a suspect during an interview.
To assess police accuracy in detecting lies whilst watching the interviews.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

How many studies were there in Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

2.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What was the hypothesis of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

Individual differences would be found in the police. Those who hold stereotypical beliefs in detecting lies would be less effective.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

What was the method of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

Coding study and a lab experiment.

46
Q

What was the design of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

Repeated measures.

47
Q

Who were the participants in study 1 of Vrijj and Mann’s study? 3 groups.

A

A convicted criminal before and after conviction. Police officers interviewing him. Experimenters and independent observers analysing the tapes.

48
Q

Who were the participants in study 2 of Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

Police officers with a mean length of service of 6 years.

49
Q

In Vrijj and Mann’s study, what was the procedure of study 1? State 3 things.

A

The experimenters observed the tapes of the criminal before and after confession.
They picked out six fragments (2 before conviction, 4 after), 3 of these were truthful and 3 not.
The fragments were coded for 12 behaviours.

50
Q

Name 4 of the 12 behaviours that were picked out in Vrijj and Mann’s study 1.

A

Gaze aversion, smiling, head movements, speech rate, length of pauses, speech disturbances.

51
Q

In Vrijj and Mann’s study, what were the results of study 1? (Name behaviours)

A

Pre confession interview when lying: More gaze aversion, longer pauses, spoke slowly, more speech disturbances.
Post confession interview whilst lying: Less gaze aversion, longer pauses, spoke slowly, more speech disturbances.

52
Q

In Vrijj and Mann’s study, what is the procedure of study 2?

4 things

A

The police watched the fragments and were asked 4 questions after each fragment.
One of the questions was: Is he lying?
There were rating scales on how tense the criminal was etc.
The participants wrote down the behavioural clues that led them to their decision.

53
Q

What were the 2 IVs in study 2 in Vrijj and Mann’s study?

A

Pre or post confession.

Telling the truth or not.

54
Q

What were the results of study 2 in Vrijj and Mann’s study?

5 things

A

Accuracy rate was significantly above the level of chance.
Participants were better at detecting truths than lies.
Accuracy rate in detecting lies was below the level of chance.
Individual differences was large- 11 officers performed very poorly whereas 6 got 100% accuracy.
Those with lower scores relied on stereotypical behaviours.

55
Q

What did Vrijj and Mann conclude? (2 things)

A

The criminal didn’t show nervous behaviours, contradicting the widespread belief. Avoiding stereotypical beliefs will be a useful step in improving police effectiveness.

56
Q

Evaluate Vrijj and Mann’s study. (4 things)

A

There was a strong consistency between the two coders in study 1.
Reliable- lots of control, lab
Low EV- video footage
Confounding variables- Criminal could have planned his responses from previous interviews.
Generalisable.

57
Q

Name 4 of the 9 steps of interrogation that Inbau suggests…

A
  1. Direct confrontation
  2. Chance to shift blame
  3. Don’t allow the suspect to deny guilt
  4. Ignore excuses
  5. Reinforce sincerity via eye contact
  6. Infer guilt if suspect cries
  7. Pose an alternative question
  8. Admit guilt
  9. Document admission
58
Q

How is an interrogation different to an interview?

A

An interrogation is accusatory

59
Q

What is the purpose of an interrogation?

A

The purpose is to gain a confession.

60
Q

What was the aim of Granhag and Stromwell’s study?

A

To investigate the effects of multiple interrogations on deception detection and to see if interrogators believe suspects more when in a face to face situation.

61
Q

Describe 2 of the 4 hypotheses in Granhag and Stromwell’s study…

A
  1. There will be no difference in detection accuracy when watching 1 or 3 interrogations.
  2. a) Detection accuracy would be modest. b) accuracy in detecting truth would be higher.
  3. Interrogators would show more truth bias than observers.
  4. a) Confidence in judgements would be weakly related to accuracy. b) Confidence would be higher for truthful statements.
62
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what was the design?

A

Independent measures.

63
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, how many stages were there?

A

2.

64
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, how was the sample collected in stage 1?

A

Paid volunteer.

65
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, who were the participants in stage 1? 3 things.

A

Undergraduate students from Goteborg University.
Half were psychology students and they acted as witnesses.
3 participants acted as interviewers in Interrogation 1 and the rest acted as interrogators in interrogation 2 and 3.

66
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what was the procedure in stage 1?

A

Semi professional actors performed a staged event of a robbery scene. The witnesses afterwards were divided into 2 groups: truth tellers and liars. The liars were told to make it look like the victim was to blame.

67
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what happened in interrogation 1 in stage 1?

A

Interrogation 1: It was videotaped. The witnesses recalled what happened to 1 of 3 interviewers (who were blind). Afterwards the witnesses rated the degree of truth in their statement on a Likert scale.

68
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what happened in interrogation 2 in stage 1?

A

Interrogation 2: 4 days later. There was an even number of interrogators and witnesses, they were paired up randomly. They were videotaped. Free recall happened again and then the witnesses were asked directed questions. The witnesses rated their truth again.

69
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what happened in interrogation 3 in stage 1?

A

Interrogation 3: 1 week later. The interrtogator watched the first 2 interrogations with their witness. The interrogators told the witnesses that the statements between witnesses were inconsistent. Free recall happened again followed by specific questions. The witness rated the truth of their statement again.

70
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what did the interrogators do after the 3rd interrogation in stage 1?

A

They said whether they though their witness was being truthful or not. They then rated their confidence and assessed the truth of each statement.

71
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, how was the sample collected in stage 2?

A

Volunteer.

72
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, who were the participants in stage 2?

A

Undergraduate students fromvarious departments in Goteborg University.

73
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what was the procedure in stage 2? Detail.

A

The videotaped statements in stage 1 were used. The participants were the observers and they were divided into 2 conditions. In one condition they watched 3 interrogations with the same witness and made a set of ratings. In the other repeat condition they watched the first interrogation, made a set of ratings then watched the other 2 and made a set of ratings.

74
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, what were the results? 5 things.

A
  1. The truth tellers rated their degree of truth higher than the liars.
  2. Deception detection accuracy was not better than chance.
  3. Interrogators believed the witnesses told the truth more than the observers did.
  4. The accuracy- confidence correlation was weak.
  5. 14 participants changed their truthfulness judgement, most of them changed correctly.
75
Q

In Granhag and Stromwell’s study, which hypotheses were/ weren’t supported?

A

Supported: Hypothesis 1 (there would be no difference in detection accuracy when watching 1 or 3 interrogations). Hypothesis 2a (detection accuracy would be modest). Hypothesis 2b (accuracy in detecting truth would be higher). Hypothesis 3 (interrogators would show more truth bias). Hypothesis 4a (the confidence in judgements would be weakly related to accuracy).
Not supported: Hypothesis 4b (confidence would be higher for truthful statements).

76
Q

What did Granhag and Stromwell conclude?

A

Further interrogation doesn’t change accuracy of truth telling judgements. Independent assessment excludes bias.

77
Q

Evaluate Granhag and Stromwell’s study. State 3 things

A

Reliable as it is in a lab, it’s controlled, the interrogators were blind.
Good applications for police
Low EV as it was a staged crime.

78
Q

What were the 3 types of false confession in Kassin and Wrightsman’s study?

A 
Voluntary
Coerced compliant (after forceful questioning)
Coerced internalised (persuaded)
79
Q

What was the aim of Gudjonsson’s study?

A

To document a case of false confession of a distressed youth.

80
Q

In Gudjonsson’s study, what was the method and procedure?

A

Method: Case study
Procedure: He was interviewed and repeatedly accused of lying. The questions were leading and the boy was distressed. The questioning lasted 14 hours. He finally confessed and went to jail for a year until the actual perpetrator confessed.

81
Q

In Gudjonsson’s study, who was the participant?

A

A youth accused of 2 murders of elderly women. They had been sexually assaulted. There was no forensic evidence but his movements were inconsistent.

82
Q

What did Gudjonsson conclude?

A

This was a coerced compliant confession as he gave into peer pressure.

83
Q

Evaluate Gudjonsson’s study.

A 
High in EV
Case study so very detailed and valid
Useful
Not representative
Not reliable or generalisable.
84
Q

Define top down typology…

A

When you start with the big picture and then fill in the details

85
Q

Give an example of top down typology…

A

When murderers are either organised or disorganised.

86
Q

Give 5 details of an organised and a disorganised murderer…

A

Organised: More than average IQ, controlled mood, mobile (car), use of alcohol during crime, socially and sexually competent.
Disorganised: Less than average IQ, uncontrolled mood, lives near crime, alcohol not used during crime, socially and sexually competent.

87
Q

What was the aim of Canter et al’s study?

A

To test the reliability of organised and disorganised typologies.

88
Q

In Canter et al’s study, what was the procedure?

A

The study was a content analysis. The cases were published accounts of serial killers in the USA. They had been collected over several years by an independent researcher. The third crime committed by each serial killer was analysed to see if there were differences between types of murderer.

89
Q

What were the results of Canter’s study? 4 things

A

Disorganised murders were more common than organised murders.
Organised murderers only showed 2 variables above the level of chance (hidden body, sexual activity).
Disorganised murderers only showed 1 variable (sexual activity).
All other variables occur with both types of murderers.

90
Q

What did Canter et al conclude?

A

There is little distinction between the types of murderer so the typology isn’t useful. Personality variables are more important.

91
Q

Evaluate Canter et al’s study. 6 things

A 
High in EV
Large sample
Reliable
Useful
Data could be biased as it's secondary
Canter could have been biased when interpreting the data.
92
Q

Define bottom up typology.

A

Starting with the small details and building up to the bigger picture.

93
Q

Geographic profiling is a type of bottom up typology. What is geographic profiling? Give an example of a geographic profiling system.

A

Making predictions about offenders based on information about the location and time of their offences.
DRAGNET

94
Q

What was the aim of Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

To investigate whether human judges can apply heuristics, learnt from geographic profiling, to identify the home location of the offender.

95
Q

What was the hypothesis of Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

Participants that follow two heuristics (distance decay and circle hypothesis) will have improved predictions of the offender’s home location.

96
Q

What was the method and design of Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

Laboratory

Independent measures

97
Q

Who were the participants in Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

Students at the University of Liverpool from various courses with no knowledge of geographic profiling.

98
Q

How many groups were there in Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

2, control and experimental

99
Q

How many phases were there in Canter and Bennell’s study?

A

2

100
Q

What happened in phase 1 in Canter and Bennell’s study?

Name 5 out of 6 things.

A

The participants were given 10 different spacial displays
Each point (on a blank piece of paper) represented the location of an offence.
There was 5 locations and and each location was a murder offence committed by an American serial killer.
They didn’t use dragnet cause it doesn’t take into account of land use
Participants marked with an X where they thought the serial killer was found.
They shared what heuristics they used to get their decision

101
Q

What happened in phase 2 in Canter and Bennell’s study? Name 2 out of 3 things.

A

The control group repeated phase 1 again
The experimental group was told that most offenders commit crimes close to home and that the offenders’ home can be located within a circle (their crime loactions creating the diameter)
The experimental group then repeated phase 1.

102
Q

What were the results of Canter and Bennell’s study? List 3 out of 5 things

A

There was no significant change between predictions in the control group
There was no difference between the two groups in phase 1
DRAGNET’s predictions were significantly different
In phase 1 DRAGNET was more accurate
The experimental group has significant reductions in error distance in phase 2.

103
Q

What did Canter and Bennell conclude?

A

If people are trained with appropriate heuristics then they can accurately estimate the offender’s home location.

104
Q

Evaluate Canter and Bennell’s study. 4 things

A

Not representative
Small sample
Deterministic
Ethnocentric

105
Q

How many people did the railway rapist rape? And in what city? Did he have an accomplice?

A

23
London
Yes

106
Q

Give details on the railway rapist’s residence.

And physical details.

A 
He lived in the area of his first 3 crimes
Probably lives with wife or girlfriend
Late twenties
Light hair
Right handed
107
Q

What was the railway rapist’s occupation?

And character?

A

Semi skilled casual labour
Not in contact with public
Keeps himself to himself
Has knowledge of the railway system

108
Q

What was the railway rapist’s sexual activity like?

What was his criminal record?

A

Considerable sexual experience

Arrested previously due to aggression under the influence.

109
Q

Who was the railway rapist? And who was his accomplice?

A

John Duffy

David Mulcahy

110
Q

Evaluate Canter’s railway rapist case study.

A

Profiles are useful

Psychology (8 decks)

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