Pozzulo et. al. (2012) (Line-ups)

Question 1

What are false positive responses?

Answer 1

When an eyewitness incorrectly identifies a person as the perpetrator, even though the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup.

Question 2

What did Pozzulo et al. study?

Answer 2

They focused on false positive responses in eyewitness testimony, particularly in children.

Question 3

Who is more susceptible to false positives, children or adults?

Answer 3

Research shows that children are more likely to make false positive identifications than adults.

Question 4

What social factors can influence children’s eyewitness accuracy?

Answer 4

Pressure from authority figures, compliance with adults, and subtle interviewer cues.

Question 5

What cognitive factors can influence children’s eyewitness accuracy?

Answer 5

Developing memory and cognitive abilities make children more susceptible to suggestion and less able to recognize faces.

Question 6

What was the background of Pozzulo’s study?

Answer 6

It examined how children’s memory and cognitive abilities impact their eyewitness identification accuracy in legal settings.

Question 7

What was the first aim of Pozzulo’s study?

Answer 7

To investigate the role of social and cognitive factors in children’s lineup identification accuracy.

Question 8

What was the second aim of Pozzulo’s study?

Answer 8

To assess whether children are less accurate and more prone to false positives than adults.

Question 9

How many children participated in Pozzulo et al.’s study?

Answer 9

59 children aged 4 to 7 years old.

Question 10

What was the average age of the child participants?

Answer 10

4.98 years old.

Question 11

Where were the child participants recruited from?

Answer 11

Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classes in private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada.

Question 12

How many adults participated in the study?

Answer 12

53 adults aged 17 to 30 years old.

Question 13

What was the average age of the adult participants?

Answer 13

20.5 years old.

Question 14

Where were the adult participants recruited from?

Answer 14

An introductory psychology participant pool at a university in Eastern Ontario, Canada.

Question 15

What research method did Pozzulo et al. use?

Answer 15

A well-controlled laboratory experiment.

Question 16

What type of design was used in the study?

Answer 16

A mixed factorial design.

Question 17

What were the independent variables in the study?

Answer 17

Age group, target type (human vs. cartoon), and lineup type (target-present vs. target-absent).

Question 18

What were the dependent variables in the study?

Answer 18

Correct identification rates and correct rejection rates.

Question 19

What were the two age groups in the study?

Answer 19

Children (4-7 years old) and adults (17-30 years old).

Question 20

What types of targets were used in the study?

Answer 20

Human faces (Caucasian university students) and cartoon characters (Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go).

Question 21

What were the two types of lineups used?

Answer 21

Target-present (including the target) and target-absent (without the target, replaced by a lookalike).

Question 22

What was the main dependent variable?

Answer 22

Accuracy in identifying or rejecting the target.

Question 23

What was a correct identification?

Answer 23

Choosing the correct target in a target-present lineup.

Question 24

What was a correct rejection?

Answer 24

Indicating that the target was not present in a target-absent lineup.

Question 25

What instructions were given before the lineup?

Answer 25

Participants were told that the target may or may not be present.

Question 26

How did children indicate their lineup choices?

Answer 26

By pointing to a photo on a laptop screen or a designated box if the target was absent.

Question 27

How did adults indicate their lineup choices?

Answer 27

By marking a matching sheet.

Question 28

What type of video clips were shown to participants?

Answer 28

Four six-second clips featuring human or cartoon characters.

Question 29

What was included in the video clips to enhance recognition?

Answer 29

A two- to three-second close-up shot of the target’s face.

Question 30

What was the purpose of the filler task?

Answer 30

To allow time between video exposure and lineup presentation, reducing immediate recall effects.

Question 31

How were the lineups presented?

Answer 31

Simultaneously, with six photos displayed on a laptop screen.

Question 32

What criteria were used for selecting foils in the human lineups?

Answer 32

They matched the target’s facial structure, hair length, and color.

Question 33

What were the correct identification rates for human faces?

Answer 33

Children: 0.23, Adults: 0.66.

Question 34

What were the correct identification rates for cartoon faces?

Answer 34

Children: 0.99, Adults: 0.95.

Question 35

Did children or adults perform better at identifying cartoon faces?

Answer 35

Both performed well, with children at 0.99 and adults at 0.95 (not statistically significant).

Question 36

What were the correct rejection rates for human faces?

Answer 36

Children: 0.45, Adults: 0.70.

Question 37

What were the correct rejection rates for cartoon faces?

Answer 37

Children: 0.74, Adults: 0.94.

Question 38

What did the qualitative findings include?

Answer 38

Open-ended descriptions of what participants remembered from the videos.

Question 39

What cognitive factor influenced accuracy?

Answer 39

Familiarity improved recognition, as seen in high cartoon identification rates.

Question 40

What social factor influenced children's accuracy?

Answer 40

Children felt social pressure to choose a face even when unsure, increasing false positives.

Question 41

What developmental difference was observed in rejection rates?

Answer 41

Children had lower correct rejection rates, showing greater susceptibility to errors.

Question 42

What is the implication of the study for legal practices?

Answer 42

Caution should be used with child eyewitness testimony, especially in target-absent lineups.

Question 43

What recommendation was made for law enforcement?

Answer 43

Minimize social pressure in child eyewitness interviews to improve reliability.

Question 44

What is one way the study ensured procedural standardization?

Answer 44

The study kept key aspects consistent, including video clip duration (6 seconds with a 2-3 second close-up), photo array presentation, and instructions.

Question 45

How did the researchers select foils for the lineup?

Answer 45

They used three independent raters to ensure similarity in facial structure, hair length, and color to make identification more challenging.

Question 46

Why did the study calculate mean correct identification rates separately for each target?

Answer 46

To control for any unique characteristics of individual targets that might influence identification accuracy.

Question 47

What method did the study use to minimize order effects?

Answer 47

It randomized the position of the target in the photo array and varied the presentation order of video clips and lineups.

Question 48

How did the researchers create a child-friendly environment?

Answer 48

They introduced themselves as a university group studying TV shows and games, engaged children in crafts, and monitored for stress or fatigue.

Question 49

What did the study use to allow children to reject a lineup?

Answer 49

A silhouette option was provided so children could indicate that the target was not present.

Question 50

What age group did the study focus on, and why is this a limitation?

Answer 50

Children aged 4-7 years old, which limits generalizability as cognitive abilities change with age.

Question 51

Why does using private school children limit generalizability?

Answer 51

Private school children may differ in socioeconomic background, educational experiences, and cultural influences, affecting identification abilities.

Question 52

What are some ways the study lacked ecological validity?

Answer 52

It used a controlled lab setting, simplified video clips and photo arrays, and cartoon characters instead of real-world eyewitness experiences.

Question 53

How might authority figures have influenced children's responses?

Answer 53

Children might have felt pressure to provide answers they thought researchers wanted, leading to increased false positives.

Question 54

Why could a repeated measures design affect accuracy?

Answer 54

Fatigue effects could reduce attention, leading to more guessing in later trials.

Question 55

How did the study assess social pressure indirectly?

Answer 55

By analyzing children's higher false-positive rates in target-absent lineups, suggesting they felt pressure to make a choice.

Question 56

What ethical steps did researchers take for children?

Answer 56

They obtained parental consent, informed children of their right to withdraw, created a friendly environment, and gave a token of appreciation.

Question 57

How did the study adapt its procedure for adults?

Answer 57

Adults received a consent form, were not told the study focused on eyewitness identification, and completed a demographic questionnaire afterward.

Question 58

What real-world application does this study have?

Answer 58

It suggests traditional lineup procedures might be less reliable for children, who are more likely to make false identifications.