Pozzulo et. al. (2012) (Line-ups) Flashcards
What are false positive responses?
When an eyewitness incorrectly identifies a person as the perpetrator, even though the actual perpetrator is not in the lineup.
What did Pozzulo et al. study?
They focused on false positive responses in eyewitness testimony, particularly in children.
Who is more susceptible to false positives, children or adults?
Research shows that children are more likely to make false positive identifications than adults.
What social factors can influence children’s eyewitness accuracy?
Pressure from authority figures, compliance with adults, and subtle interviewer cues.
What cognitive factors can influence children’s eyewitness accuracy?
Developing memory and cognitive abilities make children more susceptible to suggestion and less able to recognize faces.
What was the background of Pozzulo’s study?
It examined how children’s memory and cognitive abilities impact their eyewitness identification accuracy in legal settings.
What was the first aim of Pozzulo’s study?
To investigate the role of social and cognitive factors in children’s lineup identification accuracy.
What was the second aim of Pozzulo’s study?
To assess whether children are less accurate and more prone to false positives than adults.
How many children participated in Pozzulo et al.’s study?
59 children aged 4 to 7 years old.
What was the average age of the child participants?
4.98 years old.
Where were the child participants recruited from?
Pre-kindergarten and kindergarten classes in private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada.
How many adults participated in the study?
53 adults aged 17 to 30 years old.
What was the average age of the adult participants?
20.5 years old.
Where were the adult participants recruited from?
An introductory psychology participant pool at a university in Eastern Ontario, Canada.
What research method did Pozzulo et al. use?
A well-controlled laboratory experiment.
What type of design was used in the study?
A mixed factorial design.
What were the independent variables in the study?
Age group, target type (human vs. cartoon), and lineup type (target-present vs. target-absent).
What were the dependent variables in the study?
Correct identification rates and correct rejection rates.
What were the two age groups in the study?
Children (4-7 years old) and adults (17-30 years old).
What types of targets were used in the study?
Human faces (Caucasian university students) and cartoon characters (Dora the Explorer and Go Diego Go).
What were the two types of lineups used?
Target-present (including the target) and target-absent (without the target, replaced by a lookalike).
What was the main dependent variable?
Accuracy in identifying or rejecting the target.
What was a correct identification?
Choosing the correct target in a target-present lineup.
What was a correct rejection?
Indicating that the target was not present in a target-absent lineup.
What instructions were given before the lineup?
Participants were told that the target may or may not be present.
How did children indicate their lineup choices?
By pointing to a photo on a laptop screen or a designated box if the target was absent.
How did adults indicate their lineup choices?
By marking a matching sheet.
What type of video clips were shown to participants?
Four six-second clips featuring human or cartoon characters.
What was included in the video clips to enhance recognition?
A two- to three-second close-up shot of the target’s face.
What was the purpose of the filler task?
To allow time between video exposure and lineup presentation, reducing immediate recall effects.
How were the lineups presented?
Simultaneously, with six photos displayed on a laptop screen.
What criteria were used for selecting foils in the human lineups?
They matched the target’s facial structure, hair length, and color.
What were the correct identification rates for human faces?
Children: 0.23, Adults: 0.66.
What were the correct identification rates for cartoon faces?
Children: 0.99, Adults: 0.95.
Did children or adults perform better at identifying cartoon faces?
Both performed well, with children at 0.99 and adults at 0.95 (not statistically significant).
What were the correct rejection rates for human faces?
Children: 0.45, Adults: 0.70.
What were the correct rejection rates for cartoon faces?
Children: 0.74, Adults: 0.94.
What did the qualitative findings include?
Open-ended descriptions of what participants remembered from the videos.
What cognitive factor influenced accuracy?
Familiarity improved recognition, as seen in high cartoon identification rates.
What social factor influenced children’s accuracy?
Children felt social pressure to choose a face even when unsure, increasing false positives.
What developmental difference was observed in rejection rates?
Children had lower correct rejection rates, showing greater susceptibility to errors.
What is the implication of the study for legal practices?
Caution should be used with child eyewitness testimony, especially in target-absent lineups.
What recommendation was made for law enforcement?
Minimize social pressure in child eyewitness interviews to improve reliability.
What is one way the study ensured procedural standardization?
The study kept key aspects consistent, including video clip duration (6 seconds with a 2-3 second close-up), photo array presentation, and instructions.
How did the researchers select foils for the lineup?
They used three independent raters to ensure similarity in facial structure, hair length, and color to make identification more challenging.
Why did the study calculate mean correct identification rates separately for each target?
To control for any unique characteristics of individual targets that might influence identification accuracy.
What method did the study use to minimize order effects?
It randomized the position of the target in the photo array and varied the presentation order of video clips and lineups.
How did the researchers create a child-friendly environment?
They introduced themselves as a university group studying TV shows and games, engaged children in crafts, and monitored for stress or fatigue.
What did the study use to allow children to reject a lineup?
A silhouette option was provided so children could indicate that the target was not present.
What age group did the study focus on, and why is this a limitation?
Children aged 4-7 years old, which limits generalizability as cognitive abilities change with age.
Why does using private school children limit generalizability?
Private school children may differ in socioeconomic background, educational experiences, and cultural influences, affecting identification abilities.
What are some ways the study lacked ecological validity?
It used a controlled lab setting, simplified video clips and photo arrays, and cartoon characters instead of real-world eyewitness experiences.
How might authority figures have influenced children’s responses?
Children might have felt pressure to provide answers they thought researchers wanted, leading to increased false positives.
Why could a repeated measures design affect accuracy?
Fatigue effects could reduce attention, leading to more guessing in later trials.
How did the study assess social pressure indirectly?
By analyzing children’s higher false-positive rates in target-absent lineups, suggesting they felt pressure to make a choice.
What ethical steps did researchers take for children?
They obtained parental consent, informed children of their right to withdraw, created a friendly environment, and gave a token of appreciation.
How did the study adapt its procedure for adults?
Adults received a consent form, were not told the study focused on eyewitness identification, and completed a demographic questionnaire afterward.
What real-world application does this study have?
It suggests traditional lineup procedures might be less reliable for children, who are more likely to make false identifications.
