Making A Case - Interviewing witnesses

Question 1

Method of Loftus and Loftus

Answer 1

Lab experiment

Question 2

Participants of Loftus and Loftus

Answer 2

36 students at uni of Washington aged 18-31, recruited through an advert, and paid $3.50, and half of the extra credits in psychology

Question 3

Procedure of Loftus and Loftus

Answer 3

• two sets of 35mm slides were shown
• 18 slides in each series showed people queuing is Taco Time
• control group= person B (second in line) handed cashier a cheque.
• in experiment condition, person B pulls out a gun
• other slides are identical, shown for 1.5 secs
• questionnaire -asked on 1-6 if able to identify it

Question 4

Results of Loftus and Loftus

Answer 4

• no sig. diff. between two conditions in questionnaire
• chance performance on photos = 8.5%
• eye fixation data= 3.72 on gun, 2.44 on cheque

Question 5

Aim of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 5

To investigate the relative recognisability of internal and external features of a facial composite.

Question 6

Participant of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 6

1st= 30 staff + students from Stirling Uni
2nd= 48 undergrad. at Stirling Uni
3rd= 8 staff + students from psychology and computer science

Question 7

Procedure of experiment 1 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 7

Stimuli = targeted photos of 10 celebs and 50 composite pics
Each face shaved and no glasses
Asked to place each composite by celeb pic

Question 8

Results of experiment 1 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 8

35% correct of external features

19.5% correct of internal features

Question 9

Procedure of experiment 2 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 9

Fools and distracter faces present

Composite presented one by one and matched to celeb faces

Question 10

Results of experiment 2 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 10

42% correct = external features

24% correct= internal features

Question 11

Procedure of experiment 3 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 11

Familiar and unfamiliar faces presented to witnesses
They then created profit composites after seeing them for 30 secs
Randomly presented to sorters who replicated ex1’s procedure

Question 12

Results to experiment 3 of Bruce and Frowd

Answer 12

57.7% of accuracy…

Question 13

Aim of Fisher and Geiselman

Answer 13

To test the cognitive interview (CI) in the field

Question 14

Method of Fisher and Geiselman

Answer 14

Field experiment

Question 15

Participants of Fisher and Geiselman

Answer 15

16 detectives from Robbery Division in Florida .

Min. 5 year experience

Question 16

Procedure of Fisher and Geiselman

Answer 16

• First phase- detectives asked to record a selection of their next interviews using standard techniques
• months, 88 interviews
• detectives divided into 2 groups, one trained in CI techniques
• training = 4 60mins sessions - 7 detectives completed
• 7 months, more interviews, analysed at uni of California - blind to conditions

Question 17

Results of Fisher and Geiselman

Answer 17

CI = 47% more info, 63% more than untrained detectives

Lab based training showed no difference between 2 conditions

Question 18

Aim of Loftus and Loftus

Answer 18

To provide support for the ‘weapon focused’ effect when witnessing a crime