MODULE #2 Flashcards
(151 cards)
factors that affect eyewitnesses’ performance (2)
(1) Estimator variables
(2) system variables
estimator variables (2)
(1) factors that may affect eyewitness testimony and that are not under the control of the criminal justice system
(2) These variables have to do with the characteristics of the eyewitness or the circumstances surrounding the event witnessed.
system variables
factors that may affect eyewitness testimony and that are under the control of the criminal justice system
Examples of estimator variables (4)
- the emotional state of the eyewitness,
- the amount of attention an eyewitness paid to the event and to the perpetrator,
- the length of time an eyewitness viewed a perpetrator,
- the lighting conditions under which a perpetrator was viewed
Examples of system variables (2)
- the way an interview is conducted o
- the way a lineup is constructed
three stages in memory processing
(1) encoding,
(2) storage, and
(3) retrieval
Encoding (5)
(1) Not all event details are encoded.
(2) When we encounter an event, we selectively attend to and encode a subset of event details.
(3) Selective attention is particularly relevant when the event is complex and extensive, as more details are selected out of attention, resulting in a memory trace that is incomplete.
(4) we don’t simply passively encode stimuli in the environment; we actively interpret our experiences.
(5) Expectations that are formed long before an event occurs may predispose us to remember the event in certain ways.
Storage (6)
(1) Information about a past event is not stored in a veridical videotape-like manner that we can access whenever we need to; it is a compilation of information from a variety of sources that combines to allow us to “know” what occurred at some past time.
(2) information acquired before and after the event influences what we report remembering about the target event
(3) General knowledge that is acquired before an event is experienced can also influence what information is stored in memory
(4) For instance, we tend to use general knowledge to “fill in the blanks” when details in memory are incomplete.
(5) may also use general knowledge to change information that is inconsistent with expectations
(6) we have trouble remembering what we actually perceived versus what we reported having perceived. This could lead to inaccuracies if the prior reports contain errors.
eyewitness’s suggestibility
the tendency of eyewitnesses to be easily influenced by suggestion
eyewitness’s suggestibility
the tendency of eyewitnesses to be easily influenced by suggestion
Retrieval (3)
- the type of question asked during retrieval attempts may have a substantial impact on what is recalled
- The nature of a retrieval cue will affect the kind of information that is retrieved
- A retrieval cue on one occasion may activate a different subset of details than a different retrieval cue that is administered on another occasion.
Situational Factors That May Affect Eyewitness Identification
- Stress/Arousal
- Weapon Focus
Generally, we recall the gist and central elements of emotional events more accurately than we do the gist and central features of non-emotional events. There are at least four possible reasons for this:
(1) events are emotional because they relate to things or include details that we care about, and this leads to better memory for those details;
(2) we tend to rehearse arousing events more than neutral events, and rehearsal enhances memory;
(3) arousing events may activate amygdala-based processing that leads to particularly vivid memories (not necessarily accurate, but memories that are experienced as vivid);
(4) there is a narrowing of attention to the central details of events that are arousing, leading to good memory for the central details at the expense of memory for peripheral details.
Stress/Arousal (2)
- emotional arousal as a physiological response and stress as the subjective interpretation.
- an event is emotionally arousing and an individual subjectively interprets that arousal as negative (stressful) or not (not stressful).
Easterbrook hypothesis
states that as arousal increases, attention to the most salient elements of the event is sharpened at the expense of attention to the less central elements of the event.
Reisberg and Heuer (2007) suggest that the narrowing of attention may not be entirely due to arousal. (2)
- Part of the effect could be explained because the central details of emotionally arousing events are typically unusual in some way, and unusual details command attention.
- Because we have limited attentional resources, some attention is diverted from peripheral details to the central details, leading to improved memory for the central details and impoverished memory for peripheral details.
There are two possible explanations for weapon focus phenomenon (3)
- the presence of a weapon is stressful and frightening to witnesses, and as a result their memory is impaired
- the weapon draws people’s attention because it is unusual or unexpected. We don’t typically encounter people carrying guns in our everyday lives. Thus, our attention is drawn to the weapon and this impairs memory for other details.
- Related to this point, when there is a weapon used in the crime, it would make sense for people to pay attention to where the weapon is pointed to assess their level of danger. As a result, witnesses do not look at the assailant’s face as frequently and later on have more trouble identifying who the real criminal was.
Weapon Focus (3)
- Research has shown that eyewitnesses are significantly influenced by the visual presence of a weapon.
- When a weapon, such as a knife or gun, is present, witnesses’ memory for other details is impaired
- eyewitnesses narrow their attention, spending more time focusing on the weapon and less time on other aspects of the situation, including the physical characteristics of the event and the perpetrator
weapon focus effect
the phenomenon whereby a witness’s memory for details is impaired by the presence of a weapon
Post-Event Factors That May Affect Eyewitness Identification
- Passage of Time
- Misleading information
Misleading information (6)
- can affect the accuracy of an eyewitness’s recall
- reports of eyewitnesses can be influenced by information introduced after the event.
- suggestions implanted within questions can influence the recall of eyewitnesses
- the way in which questions are worded could also influence eyewitness recall
- subtle variations in wording or subtle suggestions implanted in a question or statement about an event can result in substantial variation in the eyewitness’s recall of the event
- There is an interaction between passage of time and suggestion. The more time that passes between a witnessed event and a misleading question or other attempt to implant a suggestion, the more effective the suggestion will be in distorting the accuracy of the eyewitness’s report
Wells, Wright, and Bradfield (1999) delineated three conditions under which misleading information tends to affect the accuracy of eyewitness accounts:
(1) when the strength of the original memory trace is weaker rather than stronger (such as when an eyewitness does not get to observe the event for very long, or when a great deal of time has passed since the event);
(2) when the misinformation is not recognized as being incorrect at the time (such as when the misinformation is about a peripheral detail rather the central gist of the event);
(3) when the misinformation is delivered by a credible source (such as a police officer).
Three explanations for the suggestibility effect have been offered
- Misinformation Acceptance
- Source misattributions
- Memory impairmment
Misinformation Acceptance (2)
- This is the process in which participants guess or respond in a way they think the questioner wants them to respond.
- Because the questioner presented the misinformation or otherwise expressed a desire to hear the misinformation, it seems reasonable to participants that the suggestion is the desired response.