Making a Case - Interviewing EV

Question 1

Reductionism/Holism

Answer 1

Bruce:
- Cognitive = Reductionist as recall face by recalling component parts then mentally putting them all together.
New computer programmes take this into account, by using facial-morphing.
- Gesalt = Holistic as recall faces as a whole then bring them into focus.

Question 2

Reliable

Answer 2

Bruce:

• Lab experiments of Bruce have a lot of effective controls. Everyone saw the same composites and matched them to the same celebrity photos and, as celebrities they should be familiar to everyone taking part.
• 10 colour composites of male celebrities same as ones from Frowds background study, and hence increased reliability (EX1)
• Pilot study was conducted which found a subjects memory of a celebrity to be unreliable therefore matched composite to photo of each of the 10 celebrities. Otherwise this factor could have confounded the study.
• EX2 supported EX1 results, indicating reliability across the studies
• Low generalisability as small sample size, should be minimum 30 in each group to get statistical power.
• Consequentiality

Loftus:
Half of 36 university students participated in exchange for course credits, this effects motivation of going into study.
- Self report, validity of self assessed confidence of identification from 1-6 of person B from 12 photos presented in a random 3 x 4 pattern.
- No consequentiality as there is no actual life occurrence, subjects need to take it seriously.

Fisher:

• Reliable as cognitive interview encourages detectives to approach interviewing in a structured way. Traditional police interview procedures were unreliable as questions inappropriate and haphazard. CI may produce greater recall as questions approach in thorough and organised way, rather than being down to psychological technique.
• Difficult to generalise as victims of purse-snatching and muggings are in a different state from, e.g., witness to murders.

Question 3

Validity

Answer 3

Bruce:
- Facial composite technique allowed Bruce to separate out the internal and external features to see which one worked best, and in the second experiment use of the ‘distractor faces” increased the validity of the research.

Fisher:

• Double-blind means interviews were scored by outsiders who were generally independent and not biased in favour of CI.
• The use of corroborating evidence means that we can be sure the witnesses were coming up with extra true recollections, not just making details up under the influence of CI.
• Hawthorne effect: trying to measure effectiveness of CI but better recall may have been due to fact the detectives spent more time with witness; rather than any particular feature of CI itself. Therefore not measuring effectiveness of CI.

Question 4

Ecological validity

Answer 4

Bruce:

• Participants were recognising celebrities, whereas most witnesses to crime are trying to identify strangers. There is a difference between the facial features that somebody remembers of somebody they do not know and the features that we use when recognising people we do know, bias to certain features.
• No consequentiality of the experiments, in a real life situation as criminal may walk free or could go to prison.
• Often witnesses are emotionally aroused and may be recalling something distressing (high chance of stress/anxiety) in a naturalistic environment, emotions can effect memory, where as in this experiment the participants had no particular emotional reaction to the test.

Loftus:
- Not realistic as no sound, smell etc as not in a real environment.

Fisher:
- Real detectives interviewing real witnesses about real crimes.

Question 5

Key terms: Bruce

Answer 5

Schema = mental structure containing information that we hold about something which in turn connects to other schemas, creating a representation of the world or ‘knowledge’.
reconstructive memory = when we recall something, it does not happen literally like a tape recorder; using a schema we fit together likely events to make a story, some of which may be highly accurate and some very inaccurate.
Cue = anything that will jog our memory and help us to recall something eg. taste, smell, image.

Question 6

Ethnocentrism

Answer 6

Bruce:

- Focused on volunteers from Stirling University.

Question 7

Usefulness

Answer 7

Loftus:
- Many students go into research, therefore need to know what its like to be a participant, hence useful 36 participants from University of Washington.
Fisher:
- CI used today in many police forces across the world. Has bene developed for use with children and in social work and psychiatry.

Question 8

Science

Answer 8

Loftus:
- Objective measure of eye fixation

Fisher:
- CI based on scientific principles of memory (encoding specificity hypothesis, Hierarchical Network Model and Schemas).

Question 9

Quantitative

Answer 9

Bruce:
- Quantitative data on correct identification of target from composite photos.
Loftus:
- Self-report questionnaire produced quantitative data on confidence of identification of person B from 12 photos presented.

Question 10

Findings Bruce

Answer 10

EX1:
33% external and whole face composites correct identification
19.5% internal
EX2:
41.6 external
28.4% internal
No significant difference between hard and controls.
CONC:
External were better use of recognising faces, producing similar results to whole faces. Internal features not sufficient to identifying face, however necessary to name celebrity.

Question 11

Findings Loftus

Answer 11

Accuracy of recall:
-No significant difference.
General MCQ questions found weapon condition had little effect on what the subjects remembered.

Line-up data:
-SIGNIFICANT
40% of control subjects choose the correct person
11% of weapon subjects choose the correct person
- No significant difference.
No difference between groups on confidence level.

Visual fixation data:
-SIGNIFICANT
More fixations on the gun 3.74 than on the cheque 2.44
Duration of fixation on the gun 242ms greater than the cheque 200ms.

Weapon induces anxiety and fear, as one feels threatened and we know anxiety and fear affects memory.

Question 12

Conclusions Loftus

Answer 12

• Focus on the gun led to a reduced ability to identify the individual holding the gun, as spent longer looking at gun.
• Second experiment using same procedure with another 80 psychology students supported the findings.
• Seeing a gun produces high arousal and stress, which leads to a narrowing of attention, and recognises that their experiment does not create the same degree of stress as a real crime.
• Could the effect be due to an unusual object being pointed the cashier?

Unusual attack or one involving a weapon is going to affect the witness’s ability to create a photofit or E-fit of the attacker.
Witnesses are also highly suggestible during questioning and so the police have to be very careful not to lead them in any way which might later destroy a case going to court.
EV:
- subjects who have experience with guns may show less of a weapon focus
- studies which examine real-life line-ups in which the crime involved or did not involve a gun do not find any difference in witness performance
- subjects who witness a crime involving a gun may actually pay more attention and be better witnesses

Question 13

Loftus Procedure

Answer 13

2 series, 18 slides each, each slide 1.5 seconds… one control series where cheque handed over and change handed back from cashier, one weapon series where gun pointed at cashier and money handed over, both times it was second person (called person B). Distractor task for 15 minutes then 20MCQ questionnaire with 7Q focused on person B.
Eye movements were recorded as it is assumed that eye fixation data are a valid measure of someones attention in these pieces of research. The participants are filmed while looking at slides and minute accurate measurements are made of exactly where the eyes were scanning. These measurement can be plotted to reveal the greatest gaze concentration.
Participants told it was a study on proactive interference.
Also given a line up of 12 head–and shoulder photos and asked to rate how confident they were of their identification on a scale of 1-6 (guess-very sure).

Question 14

Bruce - Intro

Answer 14

Facial composite technique, put together image from different components.
IDENTIKIT, - LA 1940s, PHOTOFIT - more realistic, EFIT - facial features from huge databases.
Cognitive psychology, memories reconstructive, invent memories from schemas = stereotyped ideas.
Clear differences between recognising familiar and unfamiliar faces.
Familiar - internal cues (brows)
Unfamiliar - external cues (hair)

Question 15

Loftus - Intro

Answer 15

Effected by variables:

• Delay
• Exposure mode: arousal, if high ability to do things get worse.
• Stimulus variables
• Subject variables: CULTURE.. Asian(eyes)/Western(face) JACK