psychology paper 1 case study flashcards
when was the cognitive interviw developed and why
1985
response to traditional police interviews
what did fisher et al do
studied police interviews in florida and found that witnesses were presennted qith short closed questions
what did gielemnan do
For this reason, Geiselman et al (1985) developed the cognitive interview,
gieselnmans method
89 students watched a video of a simulated crime.
Two days later they were interviewed using cognitive interview or standard interview
average correct items recalled in cog vs standard interview
41.5 vs 29.3
average number of incorrect items recalled in cog vs standard
7.3 vs 6.1
johnson and scott procedure
non weapon condition and weapon condition
after the ibcident both groups were shown 5o photos and asked to udenifty who left the lab
particants were infirmed that the suspect may or mahy not be present in the photos
what was the weapon condition
he participant overhead
A heated discussion and
The sound of breaking glass
And crashing chairs.
what was the non weapon condition
The participant heard
Someone saying that
Something about
Equipment failure
conclusion of johnson and scott
Loftus claimed that the participants who were exposed to the knife had higher levels of anxiety and were more likely to focus their attention on the weapon and not the face of the target, a phenomenon known as the weapon focus effect. The anxiety associated with seeing a knife reduces the accuracy of EWT.
yuille and cutshall
One person was killed and another seriously injured in a real-life shooting.
21 EWT were interviewed by the police.
4-5 months after the police investigation, Yuille & Cutshall asked those EWT if they wanted to participate in a research.
13 of those EWT accepted to be interviewed by Yuille & Cutshall.
findings of yuille and cutshall
They found that all of the 13 EWT were accurate in their eyewitness accounts five months later with very little changes such as the height or age.
The eyewitness avoided responding in a biased way to leading questions and the anxiety experienced at the time of the event had little or no effect on their recall of the event.
Therefore, this contradicts the weapon focus effect and the results of Loftus (1979) and shows that in real-life extreme anxiety does not affect EWT.
key factors causing ron cotton to be wrongly convited
Wrong information/features may have been rehearsed
When Jennifer was studying his face it was dark
Traumatic event so she may not have been in the right state of mind
Scared- irrational thinking
Ron Cotton had past record- guilty plea for sexual assault
Photo identification and line up- same person chosen so she was more confident that Ron Cotton was guilty
Looked similar to the real criminal – Bobby Pool
ron cotton and the implications of the judicil system
Can cause lack of trust in the judicial system, therefore
people might not report crimes, crime rates may increase
Accused with lose out on years of their life
Perpetrator might commit crimes again
Stereotypes are perpetuated- large percentage of falsely accused are black
Victim feels guilty and misconception of being safe
loftus and palmer aim
To investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
method of loftus and palmer
45American students from the University of Washington formed an opportunity sample.
This was a laboratory experiment with five conditions, only one of which was experienced by each participant (an independent measures experimental design).
Seven films of traffic accidents, ranging in duration from 5 to 30 seconds, were presented to each group in random order.
After watching the film, participants were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses.
They were then asked specific questions, including the question “About how fast were the cars going when they (smashed / collided / bumped / hit / contacted) each other?”
Thus, the IV was the verb of the question, and the DV was the speed reported by the participants.
findings of loftus and palmer
he participants in the “smashed” condition reported the highest speed estimate (40.8 mph), followed by “collided” (39.3 mph), “bumped” (38.1 mph), “hit” (34 mph), and “contacted” (31.8 mph) in descending order
loftus and palmer conclusion
The results show that the verb conveyed an impression of the speed the car was traveling and this altered the participants” perceptions.
In other words, eyewitness testimony might be biased by the way questions are asked after a crime is committed.
lolftus and palmers explanation for the results
response bias factors and memory representtion is altered
Response-bias factors
The misleading information provided may have influenced the answer a person gave (a “response-bias”), but didn’t actually lead to a false memory of the event. For example, the different speed estimates occur because the critical word (e.g., “smash” or “hit”) influences or biases a person’s response.
The memory representation is altered
The critical verb changes a person’s perception of the accident—some critical words would lead someone to perceive the accident as more serious. This perception is then stored in a person’s memory of the event.
aim of loftus and palmer 2
to investigate if leading questions simply create a response bias, or if they actually alter a person’s memory representation.
loftus and palmer proceducre 2
Another group of 150 participants were shown a one-minute film which featured a car driving through the countryside followed by four seconds of a multiple traffic accident.
Afterward, the students were questioned about the film. The independent variable was the type of question asked.
Group 1 was asked how fast were the cars going when they hit each other.
Group 2 was asked how fast were the cars going when they smashed each other.
Group 3: were not asked about the speed of the vehicles. (control group)
.One week later, the dependent variable was measured – without seeing the film again, they answered ten questions, one of which was a critical one randomly placed in the list:
The critical question was: ͞Did you see any broken glass͍͟ There was no broken glass in the video clip
results of Loftus and palmer 2
16 saw broken glass smashed
7 hit
6 control
didn’t see broken glass
34 smashed
43 hit
44 control