Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

PSY312 - Forensic Psychology > Week Two/Three - Eyewitness Identification > Flashcards

Week Two/Three - Eyewitness Identification Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Two types of evidence for forensic investigations?

A

Physical evidence

witness (victim) evidence

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

E/W errors?

A

Incorrect IDs - suspect (may/may not be involved) vs foils (def weren’t involved)

Misses - dont recognise anyone even when guilty suspect in there (incorrect rejection)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Luis Diaz case?

A

7 charges of rape
Evidence: 5 victim IDs, later lineup videos
Defense: no english, wasn’t 6 ft, etc
Served 26 years for a crime he didn’t commit (DNA proved)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Eyewitness identification studies typically involve?

A

• simulated live or video crime
• event systematically manipulated: e.g. exposure time of offender, presence of a weapon, race of offender
• lineup presentation: live, photo array, video array
• target present vs. target absent – as in the real world
• lineup manipulated – number of people, similarity of foils to
suspect, etc.
• archival studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Methodological issues (lab)?

A

Lab experiments

  • questionable generalisability to real world (consequences of choices, motivation etc) - no consequences in lab
  • breadth of sampling
  • statistical power considerations
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Methodological issues (variables)?

A

Interactions between variables (not a single variable) determine ID performance

  • encoding stimulus & conditions
  • test stimuli
  • encoding-test match
  • metacognitive variables (beliefs & expectations)
  • social influences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Function of a lineup?

A

To see if the witness recognises the suspect

and then does the ID info increase/decrease the probability that the suspect is the offender?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Outcome of matching lineup members to memory is influenced by?

A

– quality of EW memory

– characteristics of the lineup/task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Important factors to remember in E/W ID’s?

A

Its not about accuracy of individual IDs
Need to consider factors that increase/decrease ‘reliability’ or ‘informational value’

Ask: how informative is this ID? What does it tell us? What factors in this case increase the risk of error?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Determinants of identification reliability? ie what determines reliability (MEMORY FACTORS)

A

Memory Factors
ENCODING
- viewing conditions (distance, duration)
- divided attention (weapon focus

STORAGE
- length of retention interval (memory fades over time, suggestibility, lab vs real world)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

ID accuracy immediately vs 3 weeks later?

A

Sauer et al

62% vs 47%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Determinants of identification reliability? ie what determines reliability (OFFENDER VARIABLES)

A 
Offender Variables
CHANGED APPEARANCE (natural change vs deliberate)
- Wells (2007) natural change over 4 years  (as change differs, correct ID's drop, incorrect rejections increase)

DISTINCTIVENESS

  • affects ID (encoding is better due to attention, retrieval is easier)
  • Hard to create a fair lineup (replication vs concealment)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Problem with witness in lineup situations?

A

Witness goes in assuming the bad guys is in the line up

  • results in pressure to identify (feel like they should pick someone)
  • switch to environmental cues (‘experimenter effect’)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Social factors/Demand characteristics?

A

ENVIRONMENTAL/EXPERIMENTAL CUES
- body language, suggestion etc
(intentional or more often unintentional)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How to reduce environmental/experimental cues?

A

LINEUP ADMINISTRATION

  1. double-blind
  2. unbiased instructions (reduce pressure to pick)
    - ‘culprit may not be present’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Types of instructional bias?

A

– instructions state/imply that culprit present
– emphasise importance of making a positive ID
– absence of ‘not present’ option

17
Q

Lineup Bias (composition and functional size)

A

Where there is other foils but they don’t match the suspect at all

18
Q

Characteristics of a good lineup?

A

• Unbiased instructions
• Double-blind presentation
• Lineup fairness
– fair/unbiased is good

19
Q

How do we create a “good” lineup?

A

Need a good number of plausible candidates!

20
Q

Lineup composition: selecting foils?

A

Match Description Strategy
– description indicates EW memory for culprit
– foils must match on described characteristics, but
may vary on others
– variation helps EW pick bad guy based on
memory

21
Q

Potential problem of Match Description Strategy?

A

Quality of descriptions provided
– EWs may not (probably won’t) report all they
remember (items not cued, difficult to articulate, etc)

22
Q

Lineup Presentation Methods?

A
  1. The Show Up (is this the guy)
  2. Simultaneous Lineup
  3. Sequential Lineup
23
Q

Simultaneous Lineup problems?

A

Absolute vs. Relative judgements/similarity

  • consequences of relative judgements (maybe none look similar but one is still the most familiar)
  • relatively okay if target is present BUT consequential if not.. why? choosing rates are same when TA vs TP (people choosing next best option)
24
Q

Sequential lineups effects?

A

Promotes absolute judgement and reduces relative

  • Lower choosing rates
  • Correct IDs: same or lower (cf. current research)
  • Fewer false IDs in TA lineups (however increases with backloading)
25
Q

Discrimination VS Bias? SIM vs SEQ

A

No diff in discrimination for Sim or Seq (ROC analysis says sim better tho)

Small sig effect of bias (seq more conservative)

26
Q

Lineup presentation method influences?

A

decision strategy & matching process

Will interact with other factors (e.g., lineup fairness) to affect reliability of ID evidence

27
Q

Confidence and ID accuracy?

A 
Confident IDs are persuasive within the criminal justice
system
• U.S. Supreme Court
• surveys of police, lawyers, jurors
• mock-juror studies
28
Q

Relationship between confidence and accuracy?

A

as confidence increases, so does accuracy (with choosers)

29
Q

Influences on confidence?

A

• repeated questioning increases confidence in incorrect ID
• preparing witness for cross-examination increases
confidence, especially for inaccurate witnesses
• telling witness who made false IDs that co-witness identified the same person increases confidence
• telling witness who made false IDs that they had identified the suspect increases confidence
• post-ID feedback increases confidence of all ID responses

30
Q

Confidence overall?

A

Systematic, positive CA relation for choosers
BUT
Only confidence measured immediately after the decision is potentially informative

31
Q

Summary of E/W memory and reliability?

A

E/W memory & ID reliability will be shaped by
(interactions between)
1. Conditions in which memory was formed
2. Conditions in which memory was tested

PSY312 - Forensic Psychology (9 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions