Pozzulo Flashcards
How does human memory differ from computer memory?
Human memory is not stored or recalled perfectly like computer memory; it is active, reconstructive, and prone to distortion.
Why is human memory an issue in criminal trials?
Memory can be distorted during encoding or retrieval, and external influences, such as post-event information or suggestive questioning, can alter memories.
What did Elizabeth Loftus’ research reveal about memory manipulation?
Memory is highly susceptible to suggestion, and people can be convinced they are accurately remembering something when they are not.
What did Pozzulo & Lindsay (1997) find about children in eyewitness tasks?
Children are less likely than adults to say “I don’t know” in response to a question, even when it’s a valid option, leading to potential errors.
What is a major risk in police line-ups?
Witnesses may identify an innocent person (false positive), especially when the real culprit is absent from the line-up.
Why are children more likely to make mistakes in line-ups?
Children may feel social pressure to choose someone, viewing non-selection as a wrong or non-compliant response.
What were the aims of Pozzulo et al.’s study?
Test children’s accuracy compared to adults in identifying targets in line-ups.
Investigate social and cognitive factors affecting children’s decisions in target-present and target-absent line-ups.
Why were cartoon characters used in the study?
Familiar cartoon characters posed low cognitive demand, allowing researchers to isolate social factors influencing children’s accuracy.
What were the independent variables in the study?
Age (children vs. adults).
Line-up type (target-present vs. target-absent).
Cognitive demand (familiar cartoon vs. unfamiliar human faces).
What was the dependent variable?
Whether the participant correctly identified the target (if present) or rejected the line-up (if absent).
How were the photoarrays designed for humans and cartoons?
Cartoon targets had still images paired with four similar “foil” characters.
Human targets were photos of two Caucasian students with foils resembling their features.
Who participated in Pozzulo et al.’s study?
59 children (aged 4–7) from private schools in Ontario, Canada.
53 adults (aged 17–30) recruited from a university psychology pool.
Why were cartoon targets used for children?
To ensure children were familiar with the stimuli, parents/guardians confirmed their familiarity with the cartoons used in the study.
What was the structure of the study?
Participants watched videos of cartoon or human targets.
They answered a filler question to recall the target.
They completed a line-up task with either target-present or target-absent line-ups.
How were children and adults instructed for the line-up task?
Children: Asked to point at the correct photo or the blank silhouette if the target was absent.
Adults: Recorded their responses on a sheet.
What controls were in place to ensure fairness?
All photos were in black and white.
Line-up positions were randomized.
Experimenters wore neutral, non-authoritative clothing to reduce social pressure.
How did children perform compared to adults in target-present tasks?
Children were as accurate as adults when identifying cartoon characters but less accurate with human faces.
How did children perform in target-absent tasks?
Children were more likely than adults to incorrectly identify an innocent person, especially with human faces.
What were the overall findings?
Children’s identification errors in target-absent line-ups were influenced by social factors, not memory issues.
All four predictions were supported by the findings.
What causes children’s errors in target-absent line-ups?
Social pressure to make a selection rather than cognitive memory errors.
What does this study suggest about cognitive vs. social factors in children’s decisions?
Social factors, like compliance with authority or fear of non-response, significantly influence children’s decision-making.
What were the strengths of the study?
Controlled lab environment ensuring high internal validity.
Quantitative data for easy analysis.
Ethical treatment of child participants (e.g., consent, right to withdraw).
What were the weaknesses of the study?
Low ecological validity (not a real crime situation).
Deception (participants unaware of the true purpose).
