Pozzulo et al. Flashcards
What usually happens to memory
It is usually warped or distorted in some way (we think our recall is perfect, but all evidence suggests that this is rarely true)
What can change our memories
Information we are exposed to
When is the changing of memories particularly a problem
When human memory is used in evidence in a criminal trial- sometimes details aren’t important, and sometimes they are vital
What kind of process is memory, and why
Memory is an active process, as memory is constantly being reconstructed
What did Elizabeth Loftus do research on, and what are three points as to why memory manipulation should be researched
She did research into how easily our memory can be manipulated, because
-people are convinced they are remembering the truth
-we are scarily open to manipulation
-suggestions are easily adapted to memory
Who did Pozzulo et al. study
child witnesses
What did Pozzulo et al. recognize about what cognitive effects can be responsible for
She recognized that cognitive effects (like those caused by post-event information, including the ways questions are asked) can be responsible for errors in decision-making
When was the previous study that Pozzulo and Lindsay conducted, and what did their research show
1997- earlier research showed that children were less likely than adults to say ‘I don’t know” in response to a question, even when they knew it was a possible response
How do police use line-ups
to get a witness to identify a perpetrator of a crime
How do the witness and the line-up of individuals relate
The witness must choose from the line-up of individuals
Would the perpetrator be in the lineup of individuals
The perpetrator may or may not be in the line-up of individuals
What is wrong with the system of police-line ups
This system can create mistakes and therefore miscarriages of justice
What did Pozzulo and Lindsay (1998) find regarding when the culprit is not in the lineup of people, and what is this called
That when the culprit is not in the line-up, children are more likely than adults to identify an innocent person (this is called a false positive response)
What does Pozzulo et al. focus on
Social effects on child witnesses
What did Pozzulo et al. suggest was the reason for children making incorrect decisions in a line-up
Several Different social factors
What are 3 key social factors that may influence a child’s decision in a line-up
- Children may not choose if they don’t know who to choose, as they may think ‘If I’m given a selection I have to make a choice’ (could be seen as a non-response in the child’s eyes)
- A child is likely to view the adult who asks them the question as someone in authority and is therefore more likely to comply with the request
- Children may feel more pressured to choose adults. They want to obey the command they were given and may fear that they will get in trouble if they don’t make a decision within the lineup
What is a target-present lineup, and what is a target-absent lineup?
-target-present lineup: the ability to identify the suspect when they are within the lineup
-target-absent lineup: the ability to reject faces when the culprit is not within the lineup
What did Pozzulo et al. need to do to explore the effect of social vs cognitive factors on children’s performance as eyewitnesses
Minimize any cognitive effects that could impair the children’s decision-making
What was the first identification and rejection thing that Pozzulo compared for children
They compared the identification and rejection of a cartoon character
Why should children be able to identify cartoon characters with the same accuracy as adults (100%)
Because they are familiar to children
Why is recognizing cartoon faces a cognitively easy task for children
It only requires matching an existing memory to faces they can see
When recognizing cartoon faces in a target-absent task, what does matching not being possible mean?
The child must make a selection
What may happen when children are faced with a harder task
Children rely more on social factors and make more errors than adults
The aims were to test what four predictions (list of four)
- Children will be as good as adults at identifying cartoon faces in a target-present lineup
- Children will be worse than adults at identifying human faces in a target-present lineup
- Children will be worse than adults at rejecting cartoon faces in a target-absent lineup
- Children will be worse than adults at rejecting human faces in a target-absent lineup
What kind of experiment was Pozzulo et al.
Lab experiment
What were the three IV’s of this experiment
Age: young children vs adults
Lineup type: Identification (target-present) vs rejection (target-absent)
Level of Cognitive demand (familiarity of target): cartoon (familiar, low cognitive demand so differences due to social demand) vs human (unfamiliar, therefore higher cognitive demand)
What design did Pozzulo et al. follow for the comparison between adults and children
Independent Measures Design
What design did Pozzulo et al. follow for the comparison of lineup type
Repeated Measures Design
What kind of photos were participants given to test identification/recognition of cartoons, and how did this differ from humans
Black and white photos of close-cropped faces for the cartoons, and they were given head and shoulder images for the humans
What was the Dependant Variable for Pozzulo et al.
Whether the participant identified the correct face if present, or the empty silhouette if not
How were the children’s responses recorded
The children’s response, given by pointing, was recorded by the experimenter
How did adult participants record their responses
Adult participants recorded their responses on a sheet
How many children were in the sample for Pozzulo et al., and what ages did they fall into
59 children, between the ages of 4-7
What was the mean age of the children in the sample of Pozzulo et al.
4.98
How many male and female children were there in Pozzulo et al.’s sample
21 females and 38 males
Where were the children in Pozzulo et al.’s study from
Recruited from pre-k/kindergarten classes in 3 private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada
How many adults were in the sample for Pozzulo et al., and what ages did they fall into
53 adults, aged 17-30
What was the mean age of the adults in the sample of Pozzulo et al.
20.54
How many male and female adults were there in Pozzulo et al.’s sample
36 females and 17 males
Where were the adults in Pozzulo et al.’s study from
Recruited from the Introductory Psychology Participant Pool at Eastern Ontario University
What was done in Pozzulo et al.’s study to ensure that participants were familiar with the 2 cartoons used in this study
The adults provided information, and by the children’s parents/guardians, to ensure that all participants were familiar with the two target cartoons (Dora The Explorer and Go Diego Go)
What kind of people were the face targets
Two caucasian students
What were the two face targets used to make (two types of stimulus material)
Videos: 6-second clip filmed of an everyday task: a female brushing her hair and a male putting his coat on (each video was in color with no sound and showed 2-3 seconds of the individual face
Photoarrays: The two human ‘targets’ were photographed wearing different clothes than in the video. For each target, four foil photos were chosen by 3 raters to look similar to the target (in terms of facial features, hair length, and color) All photos were cropped to include only the face, neck, and top of the shoulders
What did target-present line-ups contain
The target and 3 foils
What did the target-absent line-ups contain
4 foils
Why did every lineup contain a blank silhouette
To enable a choice to be made even if the participant judged that the target was not present
How was the line-up shown to participants
As a simultaneous array - the target (if present), all the foils, and the blank silhouette were shown all at once
How was the position of each target in the line-up set up
The position of each target in the line-up was randomized
What was the equivalent for the setup of the target-absent setup
The 4th foil was in the same position as the original target
What colors were the cartoon photos that were shown to the participants and why
All photos were black and white, as the bright cartoon colors would have become the focus of recognition rather than the identification of the character
What were the four videos that each of the participants watched
-cartoon-target-present
-cartoon-target-absent
-human-target-present
-human-target-absent
How were the videos presented to the participants
They were presented in random order, each being followed up by a line-up task
What happened in each of the four tasks to ensure counterbalancing was incorporated
In each of the four line-up tasks, the position of the target or its matching foil was counterbalanced
What were photo arrays and videos presented on (what type of technology)
All photo arrays and videos were presented on a 13-inch laptop screen
What was each child’s parent/guardian and each adult participant given to fill in
A written consent form
What were adults told when they went into the lab
It was a study on memory
How were the children tested (who came to the children’s school)
3 female experimenters went to the children’s school
What were the children told about the study by the 3 female experimenters who came to their school
That they were researchers from a university doing a project on TV shows and computer games
What was made clear to the children (about the choice that they made to join in on the study) before the experiment began
It was made clear to all of the children that they could change their minds about wanting to join in and would not get in trouble
What did the experimenters do before the study began to ensure all children felt comfortable
To help the children feel more comfortable, the experimenters did some crafts with them before starting
How were the experimenters dressed, and why
Three female experimenters were neatly dressed in professional-casual clothes, not overly formal because it may have influenced children’s responses to the line-ups through social pressure (eg. by suggesting authority)
Participants were tested individually, and then why were they asked to pay attention
They were also asked to pay attention because they would be asked some questions and shown some pictures after watching the video
What was each participant asked following each video
A free recall/filler question (e.g. “What did the cartoon character/person look like?)
What were only the children then asked following the filler question after each video, and how was this recorded
The children were then asked a non-specific probing question (e.g. “Do you remember anything else? or “Do you remember anything from the video?) The experimenter recorded the children’s responses
What were only the adults then asked following the filler question after each video, and how was this recorded
The intial question that followed the filler question was “Do you remember anything else about the cartoon character/person?” Adults recorded their own responses
What were children and adults both told after the filler task
“Please look at the photos. The person/cartoon may or not be here. If you see the person/cartoon, please point to the photo. If you do not see the person/cartoon, please point to this box (indicating the blank silhouette)”
What were children and adults both told after the filler task, but then how were the adult’s instructions different from the children
The adults were given the same instructions:
“Please look at the photos. The person/cartoon may or not be here. If you see the person/cartoon, please point to the photo. If you do not see the person/cartoon, please point to this box (indicating the blank silhouette)”
But they didn’t point, instead, they indicated their response on a matching sheet
Why was the procedure repeated for each of the four videos
So that all four videos had been seen and responded to with the line-up task
What was the DV of Pozzulo et al.’s study
Whether the participant identified the correct face if present, or the empty silhouette if absent
What two key differences did the researchers want to investigate
- The difference between children’s and adults’ identification and rejection accuracy
- The difference in children’s identification and rejection accuracy between cartoon characters and humans
Adults were ___?___ than children at most tasks?
Better
Responses to ______ were generally more accurate than responses to ______________
Responses to cartoons were generally more accurate than responses to human targets
How much of a difference was there between the responses of children and adults in the target-present test for cartoons
Very little difference
How did all four predictions made by Pozzulo et al. relate to the findings of this study
All four predictions made by Pozzulo et al. were supported by the findings
What were the children best at, and what accuracy did they achieve for this
As predicted, children could easily find the correct face in the target-present lineup with cartoons with almost 100% accuracy
What do the results for the target-present lineup with cartoons for children show us about any errors that happened in this category
It shows us that any errors must have been a result of social factors rather than cognitive factors (cannot be explained by a faulty memory for the faces of cartoon characters)
What is the most likely social factor affecting a low correct rejection rate by children
The child’s expectation that they should make a selection, rather than a ‘non-selection’ (ie to correctly say that the target character is absent
What can the differences seen between children and adults in their rejection rate of human faces be explained by
The effects of social demands
What are both identification and rejection affected (to an extent) by
both cognitive and social factors
Who do social factors play a larger part in decision-making in target-absent line-ups than in target-present ones for
Children
What is the GRAVE analysis for Pozzulo et al.’s study
G: Generalizability: High
R: Reliability: High
A: Application: High
V: Validity: Medium
E: Ethics: High
What are the 7 strengths of Pozzulo et al.’s study
- Standardized environment (lab)
- Adults and children had the same experience as much as possible
- DV clearly operationalized
- Quantitative Data- Easy to analyse
- Controlled Demand Characteristics
- High internal Validity
- Study with children, but good ethics in terms of consent and no harm being done, right to withdraw, child-friendly
What are the 3 weaknesses of Pozzulo et al.’s study
- Lacks ecological validity
- No real importance felt by participants (because it wasn’t a real crime) - emotional experience of a real crime would be a factor
- Deception - ethics
