Puzzolo et al. (line ups)

Question 1

What are false memories?

Answer 1

• refers to cases in which people remember events differently from the way it happened

Question 2

What do false memories include?

Answer 2

• eye witnesses can provide very compelling legal testimony, but susceptible to errors/biases
• held with high confidence
• vivid
• some parts of the memory can be reconstructed
• person may remember events that never happened at all

Question 3

Use of children in psych studies

Answer 3

strengths:
- less demand characteristics
- less social desirability

weaknesses:
- issues with language and comprehension
- consent required from parents

Question 4

What are the predictions of this study

Answer 4

• children and adults have similar rate of correct identification for cartoon faces
• children produce lower correct identification rate for human faces compared to adults
• children will have a lower rejection rate compared to adults for both cartoon and human faces

Question 5

CHILDREN sample

Answer 5

• 59 young children
• 4 - 7 yrs of age
• mean age = 4.98 years
  (SD = 0.82)
• 21 fem, 38 males
• recruited from pre-kindergarten
• came from 3 private schools in eastern Ontario, Canada

Question 6

ADULT sample

Answer 6

• 53 adults
• 17-30 yrs of age
• 36 fem, 17 male
• mean age = 20.54 (SD = 3.34)
• recruited from Introductory Psychology Participant pool from Eastern Ontario University

Question 7

Research method, IVs, and DVs

Answer 7

• Research method: laboratory experiment
• IV’s manipulated:
  –> age (young children vs adults)
  –> target (cartoon vs human)
  –> line up type (target present vs rejection) - target absent

DV’s manipulated:
–> correct identification of the cartoon or human face or the rejection

Question 8

Demographics and cartoon watching form

Answer 8

• participant’s age
• gender
• primary language
• ethnicity
• no. of children in households and their ages
• amount of time spent watching two target cartoons used in the study

Question 9

HUMAN FACE TARGETS

Answer 9

Targets:
- 1 female Caucasian university student (22 yrs)
- 1 male Caucasian university student (22 yrs)

Filming:
- each human target was filmed completing an everyday task for 6 second video
- female = brushing hair in bathroom
- male = puts coat on exiting bathroom
- each video provided 2-3 sec close up of individual’s face
- target video filmed in color

Question 10

Line ups

Answer 10

Target present:
- face target, foil, foil, foil

Target absent:
- foil, foil, foil, foil + face target

Question 11

HUMAN FACE FOILS

Answer 11

• each human target = photographed in a different outfit than what was worn during video clip
• 90 female faces, 90 male faces were selected
• selected based on similar appearance in terms of:
  –> general facial structure
  –> hair length
  –> color
• 3 rates selected the 4 foils for each target
• foils = black & white
• videos = in color
• targets and foils were closely cropped like their face, neck, top of their shoulders was photographed

Question 12

Targets (cartoons & human faces)

Answer 12

Cartoons:
- Go Diego Go
- Dora the Explorer

Human faces:
- Male: putting on coat
- Female: brushing hair

Question 13

Cartoon targets

Answer 13

• 1 fem, 1 male cartoon character
• 6 sec clip of following were used:
  –> Dora the explorer talking to audience
  –> Go Diego Go putting on pair of gloves for safety
  –> each video is 2-3 sec close up of target’s character face, involved no other characters
  –> video clips in color
  –> video sound was muted as there no sound with human face videos

Question 14

Line up presentation

Answer 14

1. each target line up was presented
2. simultaneous procedure was used to present the line up
   *each line up: all pictures shown at once
3. target-present conditions: photograph of the target along with 3 other foils were presented
4. target-absent conditions: target was replaced with similar foil and target replacement was place in same position
5. each target’s line up position was randomized
6. also included silhouette to show possibility of absent target
7. each pp saw 4 videos in random order
8. pps were showed 1 photo array and position of target was counter-balanced across photo arrays
9. videos and photo arrays displayed on 13-inch laptop screens using Microsoft PowerPoint program

Question 15

Line up administrators

Answer 15

• experiments were “neat” in dressing but not overly formal
• experimenters wore professionals - casual clothing (eg - sweater, blouse, dress-pants)
• 3 female experimenters showed children video clips and photo arrays

Question 16

free recall descriptions

Answer 16

• 2 mins lapsed between video exposure and line up presentation
• all pps were asked an open-minded question describing everything they can remember about the video clips
• researchers recorded each child’s responses
• the task was used as a brief filler between exposure of video and presentation line up
• adult pps recorded their own responses

Question 17

Children’s procedure

Answer 17

• parents/guardians were supplied with a written consent form and demographic sheet
• demographic sheet - completed by the parent to ensure children were familiar with the target cartoons
• 3 female experimenters, 1 female facilitator arrived at each private school
• researchers were introduced - group from the university doing a project on TV shows and computer games
• researchers made it clear to children that they could change their minds at any time and not get into trouble
• researchers worked with children to make some crafts prior to engaging the children in experimental task
• experimenters tested children individually
• children monitored with fatigue, anxiety, and stress
• each child was told they would be watching some videos of people doing different things
• children were told to pay attention - following the video, they were asked questions and shown some pictures
• once child is comfortable, experimenter played first videos (human/cartoon)
• after video clip, experimenter asked child one free recall question about what they remembered from video. Eg: “What did the cartoon character look like?”
• after child’s response, experimenter asked a non-specific question twice. Eg - “Do you remember anything else?”
• if children offered no response, experimenter then again asked “Do you remember anything else from the video?”
• after recording information provided by the child, experimenter displayed corresponding line up (in PowerPoint) on laptop to child
• experimenter asked child to identify cartoon/person they saw in video by pointing
• experimenter told child that the person they saw may/may not be there, and demonstrated that if the correct person wasn’t there, then they should point to the silhouetted box
• experimenter recorded child’s response
• procedure was repeated for additional 3 videos, every time reminding children that the cartoon/person they’re looking for may not be in the line up
• end of study = children were thanked and given a small token (crayons, coloring book, etc)
• facilitator was responsible for entertaining children while they waited to complete experimental task

Question 18

Adult’s procedure

Answer 18

• when participants entered the lab, they were given a short intro
• they were provided with a consent form explaining they’re participating in a study about memory
• after, the participants were told they would be watching some videos
• pps were asked to pay attention since after videos they’d be asked questions and shown pictures
• after first video, pps were given sheet asking free recall questions
• pps wrote down all what they could remember about what they saw on video
• experimenter showed line up using PowerPoint on laptop to pps
• experimenter asked pps to identify cartoon/person they saw in video and whehter they were present by choosing selection on matching sheet
• experimenter mentioned the person they saw may not be there
• pps were asked to select option that matches with silhouetted photo in each line up
• procedure was repeated for additional 3 videos
• pps were reminded that person they were looking for may not be in line up
• after videos and line ups, pps were given demographic questionnaire testing familiarity with cartoon shows
• pps were debriefed and thanked for participation

Question 19

Results: TARGET PRESENT LINE UPS (young children)

Answer 19

• young children:
  –> mean correct identification rate for:
  1. human facer per child
  2. cartoon faces per child

HUMAN FACES - correct identification rate
= 0.23
CARTOON FACES - correct identification rate
= 0.99

HUMANS VS CARTOONS
- young children significantly more accurate with higher correct identification rate for cartoon faces (0.99) then human faces (0.23)

Question 20

(adults)

Answer 20

HUMAN FACES = 0.66

CARTOON FACES = 0.95

HUMANS VS CARTOONS
- adults were significantly more accurate with cartoon faces (0.95) than human faces (0.06)

Question 21

Young children VS adults

Answer 21

• both produced comparable identification rate for cartoon characters (0.99 vs 0.95)
• young children compared to adults produced a significantly lower correct identification rate for human faces (0.23 vs 0.66)

Question 22

Results: TARGET ABSENT LINEUPS (young children)

Answer 22

HUMAN FACES - correct rejection rate
= 0.45

CARTOON FACES - correct rejection rate
= 0.74

HUMAN VS CARTOON
- young children were significantly more accurate with higher correct rejection rate for cartoon faces (0.74) than human faces (0.45)

Question 23

(adults)

Answer 23

HUMAN FACES - correct rejection rate
= 0.70

CARTOON FACES - correct rejection rate
= 0.94

HUMAN VS CARTOON
- adults were significantly more accurate with higher correct rejection rate for cartoon faces (0.94) than human faces (0.70)

Question 24

Young children VS adults

Answer 24

• young children produced a significantly lower correct rejection rate than adults for cartoon faces (0.74 vs 0.94)
• young children produced a significantly lower correct rejection rate than adults for human faces (0.45 vs 0.70)

Question 25

Results and conclusions (target present identification)

Answer 25

CHILDREN - (cartoon vs human) - children are more accurate at identifying cartoon faces that human faces ADULTS - (cartoon vs human) - adults are more accurate at identifying cartoon faces than human faces CHILDREN VS ADULTS - (cartoon) - children have similar accuracy as adults for identifying cartoon faces CHILDREN VS ADULTS - (humans) - children less accurate than adults when identifying human faces

Question 26

Results and conclusions (target absent rejection)

Answer 26

CHILDREN - (cartoon vs human) - children more accurate at rejecting cartoon faces than human faces ADULTS - (cartoon vs human) - adults more accurate at rejecting cartoon faces than human faces CHILDREN VS ADULTS - (cartoon) - children less accurate than adults when rejecting cartoon faces CHILDREN VS ADULTS - (human) - children less accurate than adults when rejecting human faces

Question 27

Young children & adults results

Answer 27

TARGET PRESENT LINE UPS - familiar targets = cartoon characters - correctly identified (almost 100%) - cognitive factors TARGET ABSENT LINE UPS - children more likely to choose an incorrect cartoon character than to reject the line up compared to adults - same pattern seen for human faces

Question 28

What does the data suggest?

Answer 28

- children are more likely to make an error in target absent condition due to expectation to social demands to make selection rather than due to false memory

Question 29

Strength and weakness of the data results

Answer 29

ETHICAL WEAKNESS: - deception (the children were told it was about TV games and shows, adults were told it was about memory) ETHICAL STRENGTH: - protection from psychological/physical harm - consent - privacy - confidentiality METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTH: - lab experiment - low eco validity - low gen - no teens, older populations, very young children

Question 30

EVALUATION (strengths)

Answer 30

- quantitative data (mean used to compare data) - demand characteristics controlled (increases internal validity) - standardized procedure (use of controls/same set of questions asked) - consent (gained from all participants)

Question 31

(weaknesses)

Answer 31

- low eco validity (line up wasn't real) - low gen (teens and older populations weren't used)

Question 32

Issues and debates

Answer 32

Application to psychology in everyday life: - children may not be reliable eyewitnesses as adults - how to reduce social factors in eyewitness testimony Individual vs situational: - it depends on the situation rather than the individual - evidence shows more towards situational factors - eg: poor performance in target absent line ups was due to social demands/pressure Use of children in research: - effective ways of engaging children in study (evidence was shown) - eg: point to identified person/cartoon, consent, experimenter recording filler questions

Question 33

Overall conclusions

Answer 33

- children 100% accuracy in identifying target-present (cartoons) - social factors responsible for children in target-absent (low rejection rate) - for children, social factors play a larger part in decision-making in target-absent line ups than in target-present ones