Pozzulo et al (line-ups) Flashcards
AIM:
🔷 The aims were to test the following four predictions:
🔹Children will be as good as adults at identifying cartoon faces in a target-present line-up
🔹Children will be worse than adults at identifying human faces in a target-present line-up
🔹Children will be worse than adults at rejecting cartoon faces in a target-absent line-up
🔹Children will be worse than adults at rejecting human faces in a target-absent line-up
BACKGROUND:
SAMPLE:
🔷 There were 59 child participants aged 4-7 years with a mean age of 4.98 years, 21 females and 38 males. They were recruited from pre-kindergarten/ kindergarten classes in three private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada.
🔷 There were 53 adult participants aged 17-30 years with a mean age of 20.54 years, 36 females and 17 males. They were recruited from the Introductory Psychology Participant Pool at Eastern Ontario University.
PROCEDURE: 1
PROCEDURE: 2
PROCEDURE: 3
RESEARCH METHOD:
EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN:
RESULTS: 1
RESULTS: 2
CONCLUSION:
EVALUATION: (Strengths)
🔷 High Validity (reducing demand characteristics) -
To reduce the likelihood of participants working out the aim of the experiment, potential demand characteristics were controlled such as by giving them minimal information about the purpose of the study. The adult participants were told it was a study about memory and the children were told it was about TV shows and computer games. This avoided explaining the true aim, increasing internal validity.
🔷 High Reliability –
The study was a lab experiment with high levels of controls, for example, all participants were shown the same videos and photoarrays with the same faces, for the same duration, and were asked the same set of questions, hence making the procedure highly standardized, and easy to replicate, in order to test for reliability.
EVALUATION: (Weaknesses)
🔷 Low Ecological Validity –
The study was conducted in a controlled and artificial setting of a lab, and hence, lacked ecological validity. Furthermore, the participants were made to look at only videos of the culprits, and that too for a very short time, and not any other sensory information, such as sound and smell which is commonly used in eyewitness testimonies in real life, hence suggesting that the task is not one that is close to everyday life, which reduces mundane realism.
(As this was conducted in a lab, the ‘line-up’ was not real and because of this the situation would have not felt as important as in a real criminal case. The emotional experience would have been different from being faced with a genuine line-up, lowering the ecological validity.)
🔷 Low generalizability -
All participants were from Eastern Ontario, Canada, and this limits the generalisability only to people of this region, and as a result, cannot be applied to people of other countries or cultures.
(The sample, although had both adults and children, only included children from 3 private schools, and hence, of a similar socio-economic status, and adults from the same participant pool, so may have some similarities)
EVALUATION: (Ethical Issues)
🔹Ethical issues are not only about the implications for the participants of research but also for wider society. Clearly, the findings of this study make a valuable contribution to the use of children as witnesses and therefore help to improve lives.
🔹However, any potential benefits must be measured against potential damage to the participants. If the children in this research had been victims of real crimes, this would have risked considerable potential for harm.
🔷 However, the experimental situation was not crime-related and the children were not at risk. Furthermore, consent was gained from the parents/guardians of each child, as well as informed consent being gained from the children themselves in a child-friendly way. Finally, the children’s comfort and their right to withdraw were ensured as well as ongoing monitoring of their fatigue, anxiety and stress to protect them from harm.
