Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards Preview

Psychology - Forensic - Level 4 > Eyewitness Testimony > Flashcards

Flashcards in Eyewitness Testimony Deck (36)
Loading flashcards...
1
Q

Episodic Memory

Witnesses asked to remember what happened

A

Memory for experiences

Literal record but reconstructive process.

Remembering is not like replaying video, but rewriting a story using schemas.

2
Q

Episodic Memory

Evidence

A

Memory of story content is affected by the ending

Memory of story content is affected by expectation; changing expectation changes memory of content

3
Q

Episodic Memory

Implication

A

Memories may largely reconstructed

Reconstructions are fallible

Eyewitnesses can be very fallible

4
Q

Stress and Memory

How does stress affect memory?

A

Complex interaction

Some stress can be good, too much can be bad.

5
Q

Stress and Memory

Is stress bad for memory?

A

Children’s memory for events in a hurricane correlates with damage to house; memory / stress relationship consistent with quadratic function.

6
Q

Stress and Memory

Why quadratic?

A

Yerkes-dodson curve

Moderate stress and arousal benefits performance

7
Q

Stress and Memory

Stress narrows processing

A

Stress limits attention to central details;

weakens memory for peripheral details.

8
Q

Malleable memory

Suggested response bias or suggested memory bias?

A

Response to a question may be influenced by phrasing of the question.

“do you get headaches? how occasionally / frequently?”

Is this a change in memory change in response?

9
Q

Malleable memory

Phrasing biases reported memory for details

A

Estimates of speed are influenced by phrasing?

How fast was the car travelling when it contacted / smashed / hit / bumped / collided into the other car?

Memory for detail is affected by phrasing?
“did you see a broken headlight?” 7% yes
“did you see the broken headlight” 17% yes

10
Q

The misinformation effect

A

Post-event information may alter memory for event information.

Misinformation
“did another car pass red car at the yield sign?”

No Misinformation
“Did another car pass red car at the junction?”

Test
Which of these slides did you see?

No misinformation - 75%
Misinformation - 41% correct

11
Q

Misinformation Effect

What is it?

A

Personally witness an event
Read / hear incorrect details about that event afterwards

Incorrect details may infect your memory of the event.

Report what you witnessed

12
Q

Misinformation Effect

Source Memory Misattribution

A

Attributing information in memory to the wrong source

13
Q

Misinformation Effect

What affects it?

A

Several factors affect susceptibility, such as age and working memory capacity.

Environmental factors moderate the influence of misinformation, such as time delay and exposure time.

Physiological factors may increase the risk of misinformation, such as alcohol withdrawal, sleep deprivation.

Incorrect belief in compromised memory, such as false alcohol ingestion

14
Q

Differences in memory metrics

A

Reaction time and confidence

Misled condition - misleading post-event information
Control condition -
neutral post event information

Reaction times and the confidence ratings show that misled subjects are certain of their responses.

Incorrect misled responses are indistinguishable from correct responses.

15
Q

Powerful Misinformation

Sam Stone study

A
Classic study 
3-6yrs misled about behaviour of class visitor called Sam Stone. 

Given stereotype (pre-event)or suggested (post-event) misinformation or both.

Both types of manipulation result in false reports.

Over 20% ppts receiving both types of manipulation maintained their reports were true even when challenged.

Trained professionals could not distinguish between truth and false reports on video footage of ppt testimony.

Powerful memory error

16
Q

A social contagion

social misinformation

A

Co-witness recall of items in a picture

Co-witness recall of details of a video event
- 2 ppts watch event separately; slight differences in events. Discuss afterwards. Free recall of event.
71% witnesses included details they did not see.

More powerful than written misinformation

17
Q

Danger of interference

A

Natural logical inferences may act as self-generated misinformation.

  • false memory for seeing schema-congruent slides that were not shown
  • seeing effect slides inspired false memory for seeing ‘cause’ slides that were not shown

Casual inference errors affect memory within seconds.

18
Q

Exposure time and identification accuracy

A

Young and old witnesses view crime
Perpretrator visible for either
12sec or 45sec; asked to pick perpretrator out of target present or target absent line up 30 mins later.

Target-present
Young - 42% wrong
Old - 45% wrong

Target Absent
Young - 90% wrong
Old - 80% wrong

19
Q

False identification and weapon presence

What is weapon focus?

A

Presence of weapon = weaker identification, because weapon draws attention away from face and or contextually unusual objects draw attention.

20
Q

False identification and weapon presence

Evidence

A

Face fixation time is substantially lower with weapon presence

Threatening situations reduce identification rates anyway, but presence of a weapon does so even further; effects are modest.

21
Q

Ethnicity and Identification

Own-race bias or the other-race effect

A

Probability of identification error is about 1.5 times higher if target is different race compared to own-race.

An innocent black suspect is 55% more likely to be identified if witness is white as opposed to black.

22
Q

Ethnicity and Identification

Own-race bias or the other-race effect

Why?

A

Popular explanation is the contact hypothesis.

The more self-reported contact with opposite race, the higher the accuracy of identification.

Alternative explanation concerns social identity.

Faces perceived as in-group may be processed differently to those perceived to be out-group faces are processed as individuals.

23
Q

Facial Composites

Why use composites?

A

Verbal descriptions are impoverished and give a very low level of diagnosticity.

Composites allow a witness to illustrate their memory of the suspect’s face.

24
Q

Facial Composites

Are composite systems useful?

A

Composite systems vary widely; some evidence that some systems in use are inadequate

e.g. when students created composites of classmates, others in the same class could not identify the target. Zero identification rate.

25
Q

Facial Composites

Why?

A

People do not remember faces as a collection of features but remember faces holistically

26
Q

The problem with featural composites?

Are featural composites damaging?

A

Using featural composite may actually weaken later identification.

3 min exposure to face;
Composite group - make composite
Yoked-control - see composite made by previous ppt
Control group - neither make nor see composite 6-photo simultaneous line-up 2-days later.

Composite 
Target 10%
Filler 30%
No-choice 58%
Force-choice 30%
27
Q

Facial Composites

Why?

A

Does the process of using feature-based facial composite systems involve destroying the holistic links between features of the face?

28
Q

The identification line-up

Structure and function

A

Most line-ups are single-suspect, but can be multiple suspect.

Can be target-present (perpetrator is there) or target absent,

Given a line-up where the suspect is there, does the witness recognise the suspect?

29
Q

The identification line-up

What makes a fair line-up?

A

Functional size should match the actual size of line-up

Functional size is determined by number of members that are reasonable matches to perpretrator description.

30
Q

Using Line-Ups

How do witnesses identify perpetrators in a line-up?

A

What cognitive processes do witnesses use to complete the task?

What recommendations can psychology make to improve the accuracy and / or the utility of identifications

31
Q

Using Line-Ups

Relative judgement vs absolute judgement

A

Absolute: choose the candidate who is the perpetrator

Relative: choose candidate most like the perpetrator relative to other line-up members.

In simultaneous line-ups, witnesses most likely use a relative judgement.

Relative judgements lead to false identification in target-absent line-ups.

32
Q

The problem with relative judgement?

Relative judgement gone wrong

A
#3 is the perpetrator 
54% choose correctly when present; when perp is removed, other witnesses make a choice. 

If absolute judgement being used, what should happen?

For absolute judgements, expect 54% to make no choice.

Some do (no choice increases by 11%) but most go for the next closest match (poor #2).

33
Q

Two solutions to relative judgement

Pre-line-up instructions

A

the perpetrator may or may not be present.

Simple instructions reduce the proportion of false identifications in target absent line-ups

34
Q

Two solutions to relative judgement

Sequential line-up procedure

A

Many different variations sequential line-up e.g. multiple laps

Procedure is effective in reducing fale identifications in target-absent line-ups

35
Q

Sequential line up

Benefits

A

Reduction in false identifications in target-absent line-ups

Stage mock crime; sequential or simultaneous 6-person line-up; target present or target absent.

ID suspect 50% sequential
ID innocent 17% sequential
Not there 65% sequential

Correct identifications in target present around the same level.

Incorrect identifications in target-absent substantially reduced.

36
Q

Modern line-up in UK

A

Live line-ups are rare.

VIPER systems now common.
Foils chosen from over 20,000 person database.

Suspect and 8 foils shown sequentially 10 sec video of each person.

Line-up on DVD can be admisitered anywhere.

Witness asked to watch whole presentation before making any decisions.
Witness sometimes videoed making decision.