UNIT #5: Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards
(74 cards)
1
Q
Absolute Judgment
A
Witness compares each line up member to his memory of the perpetrator to decide whether the lineup member is the perpetrator
2
Q
Biased lineup
A
A lineup that “suggests” who the police suspect and thereby who the witness should identify
3
Q
Cognitive interview
A
Interview procedure for use with eyewitnesses based on principles of memory storage and retrieval
4
Q
Cross-race effect
A
Phenomenon of witnesses remembering own-race faces with greater accuracy then faces from other races
5
Q
Cue-utilization hypothesis
A
Proposed by Easterbrook to explain why a witness may focus on the weapon rather than other details. The hypothesis suggests that when emotional arousal increases, attentional capacity decreases
6
Q
Direct question recall
A
Witnesses are asked a series of specific questions about the crime or the perpetrator
7
Q
Distractors
A
Lineup members who are known to be innocent of the crime in question a.k.a. foils
8
Q
Enhanced cognitive interview
A
Interview procedure that includes various principles of social dynamics in addition to the memory retrieval principles used in the original cognitive interview
9
Q
Estimator variables
A
Variables that are present at the time of the crime and that cannot be changed
10
Q
Fair lineup
A
A lineup where the suspect does not stand out from the other lineup members
11
Q
Foils
A
Lineup members who are known to be innocent of the crime in question a.k.a. distractors
12
Q
Free narrative
A
Witnesses are asked to either write or orally state all they remember about the event without the officer asking questions a.k.a. open-ended recall
13
Q
Lineup
A
A set of people presented to the witness, who in turn must state whether the perpetrator is present and, if so, which one.
14
Q
Memory conformity
A
When what one witness reports influences what another witness reports
15
Q
Memory impairment hypothesis
A
Explanation for the miss information effect where the original memory is replaced with the new, incorrect information
16
Q
Misinformation acceptance hypothesis
A
Explanation for the misinformation effect where the incorrect information is provided because the witness guesses what the officer or experimenter wants the response to be
17
Q
Misinformation effect
A
Phenomenon where a witness who is presented with inaccurate information after an event will incorporate that misinformation in a subsequent recall task a.k.a. post-event information affect
18
Q
Open-ended recall
A
Witnesses are asked to either write or orally state all they remember about the event without the officer or experimenter asking questions a.k.a. free narrative
19
Q
Other-race effect
A
Phenomenon of witnesses remembering own-race faces with greater accuracy than faces from other races a.k.a. cross-race effect and own-race bias
20
Q
Own-race bias
A
Phenomenon of witnesses remembering own-race faces with greater accuracy than faces from other races a.k.a. cross-race effect and other-race effect
21
Q
Perpetrator
A
The guilty person who committed the crime
22
Q
Post-event information effect
A
Phenomenon where a witness who is presented with inaccurate information after an event will incorporate that Misinformation in a subsequent recall task a.k.a. misinformation effect
23
Q
Recall memory
A
Reporting details of a previously witnessed event or person
24
Q
Recognition memory
A
Determining whether a previously seen item or person is the same as what is currently being viewed
25
Relative judgement
Witness compares lineup members to one another and the person that looks most like the perpetrator is identified
26
Sequential lineup
Alternative lineup procedure where the lineup members are presented serially to the witnesses, and the witness must make a decision as to whether the lineup member is the perpetrator before seeing another member. Also, it witness cannot ask to see previously seen photos and the witness is unaware of the number of photos to be shown.
27
Showup
Identification procedure that shows one person to the witness: the suspect
28
Simultaneous lineup
A common lineup procedure that presents all line up members at one time to the witness
29
Source misattribution hypothesis
Explanation for the misinformation effect where the witness has two memories, the original and the misinformation; however, the witness cannot remember where each memory originated or the source of each.
30
Suspect
A person the police “suspect” committed the crime, who may be guilty or innocent for the crime in question
31
System variables
Variables that can be manipulated to increase (or decrease) eyewitness accuracy
32
Target-absent line up
A lineup that does not contain the perpetrator but rather an innocent suspect
33
Target-present lineup
A lineup that contains the perpetrator
34
Walk-by
Identification procedure that occurs in a naturalistic environment. The police take the witness to a public location where the suspect is likely to be. Once the suspect is in view, the witness is asked whether he sees the perpetrator.
35
Weapon focus
Term used to describe the phenomenon of a witness’s attention being focussed on the perpetrator’s weapon rather than on the perpetrator
36
Methods Used to Study Eyewitness
Memory
x2
(1) Data from Actual Crimes
| (2) Laboratory 🔬 Simulations
37
Methods Used to Study Eyewitness
Memory:
Data from Actual Crimes
x2
(1) Archival data (ie. police reports)
(2) Examine witnesses In naturalistic
Environments by Accompanying police
To crime scenes & Interviewing witnesses
After police have done Their job.
38
Methods Used to Study Eyewitness
Memory:
Laboratory 🔬 Simulations
x3
(1) Unknowing participant views
Critical event through a slide
Sequence, video, or live.
(2) Participant is unaware
He will be questioned
About event until after
It is witnessed
(3) Participant asked to
Describe what happened
& target/perpetrator involved
39
Independent Variables in eyewitness Studies (Numerous can be manipulated Or examined within laboratory Simulation)
x3
(1) Estimator variables
(2) System variables
(3) Both can be Manipulated in Eyewitness laboratory
Studies.
40
Independent Variables in eyewitness Studies (Numerous can be manipulated Or examined within laboratory Simulation)
Estimator Variables
x3
(1) Criminal justice System cannot
Exert control over These variables
(2) Can only be Estimated only After the crime
```
(3) Present at time of the Crime & cannot be
Changed:
- Presence of Weapon
- Age of the witness
- Whether witness Intoxicated
- lighting
```
41
Independent Variables in eyewitness Studies (Numerous can be manipulated Or examined within laboratory Simulation)
System Variables
x4
(1) Under control of The justice system
(2) Can be manipulated To increase (or decrease)
Eyewitness accuracy
(3) Type of procedure Used by police 👮🏼 ♀️
To interview witness
(4) Type of line-up Procedure used To present the suspect To the witness
42
General dependent Variables in eyewitness Studies
x3
(1) Recognition of Perpetrator
(2) Recall of Perpetrator
(3) Recall of the Event/crime
43
Basic elements Of memory processing
x5
(1) Perception/Attention Stage
(2) Encoding Stage
(3) Short-term Memory
(4) Long-term memory
(5) Retrieval stage
44
Formats of recall of Crime/Perpetrator:
x2
(1) Open-ended Recall/Free Narrative
| (2) Direct question Recall
45
Formats of recall of Crime/Perpetrator:
Direct question Recall
Witnesses asked a Series of specific
| questions about crime Or perpetrator
46
Formats of recall of Crime/Perpetrator:
Open-ended Recall/Free Narrative
(1) Witnesses asked to Either write or orally State all they remember About event without officer/Experimenter asking questions
47
In the Fisher Study: What Police did to limit ability To collect complete &
Accurate information
x4
(1) Ask leading or suggestive Questions:
- Dangerous when Trying to collect Accurate information
(2) Interrupted Eyewitnesses When providing open-ended Recall report:
- Limit amount of Information have in their
conscious memory by Preventing them from
Speaking or distracting Them with questions.
(3) Questioned eyewitness With short, specific
Questions.
- Tends to result in Short answers
- May not ask relevant Question that would
Provide critical information
(4) Tend to ask Questions In random order that is
Inconsistent with the Information witness was
Providing at the time.
- Mixing auditory & Visual questions which
Decreases recall
48
Memory conformity
x2
(1) When what one Witness reports
influences what another Witness reports
(2) Witnesses can be Contaminated if they
Know what other Witnesses have reported
49
Misinformation effect
Phenomenon where a Witness who is presented With inaccurate information
After an event will incorporate That misinformation into a Subsequent recall task.
50
How does the misinformation effect occur?
x2
(1) Witnesses recall can Be altered by the Phrasing of a question
(2) Occurs when a variety of
Different types of questions
And methodology are used
51
Hypotheses relating to the misinformation effect
x3
(1) Misinformation acceptance hypothesis
(2) Source Misattribution Hypothesis
(3) Memory impairment hypothesis
52
Use of hypnosis in legal contexts
x9
(1) reviews found that individuals under hypnosis will provide more details, but those details are just as likely to be inaccurate as accurate.
(2) may be unable to recall very much that was witnessed, possibly because they were
traumatized.
(3) assumed that a person under hypnosis
is able to retrieve memories that are otherwise inaccessible
(4) they may be able to recall a greater amount of information With hypnosis
(5) witness may be able to produce a greater number of details than a nonhypnotized witness
(6) The hypnotized individual seems to be more suggestible to subtle cues by the interviewer
than under normal conditions.
(7) not being able to differentiate between the accurate and inaccurate details
(8) witnesses recall both accurate and inaccurate details with the same degree of confidence
(9) Canadian courts are aware of the difficulties with hypnotically induced recall and typically do not permit information gained that way to be used as evidence
53
Cognitive interview
&
Purpose
x2
```
(1) Interview procedure for use with
eyewitnesses based on principles of
memory storage and retrieval
(2) based on four memory-retrieval techniques to increase recall: (1) reinstating the context, (2) reporting everything, (3) reversing order, and (4)
changing perspective.
```
54
Over time the cognitive interview expanded into:
| Enhanced cognitive interview
```
(1) Interview procedure that includes
various principles of social dynamics
in addition to the memory retrieval
principles used in the original cognitive
interview
```
55
Enhanced cognitive interview
x5
(1) Rapport building: officer should spend time building rapport with the
witness and make him or her feel comfortable and supported.
(2) Supportive interviewer behaviour: A witness’s free recall should not be interrupted; pauses should be waited out by the officer, who should express attention to what the witness is saying
(3) Transfer of control: The witness, not the officer, should control the flow of the interview;
the witness is the expert—that is, the witness, not the officer, was the person who saw the crime.
(4) Focused Retrieval: Questions should be open-ended and not leading or suggestive; after free recall, the officer should use focused memory techniques to facilitate retrieval.
(5) Witness-compatible questioning: An officer’s questions should match the witness’s thinking; if the witness is talking about clothing, the officer
should be asking about clothing.
56
Lineup procedures
x4
(1) not a procedure recommended
for use with unwilling participants, such as suspects.
(2)a witness views a group of possible suspects and determines whether one is the perpetrator.
(3) match-to-description strategy sets limits on the number of features that need to be matched.
(4) distractors are matched only on the items that the witness provided in her description.
57
Lineup procedures:
Lineup
Distractors
These members are called foils
or distractors, and they are
known to be innocent of the
crime in question
58
Lineup procedures:
Fair lineup
A lineup where the suspect
does not stand out from
the other lineup members
59
Lineup Procedures:
similarity-to-suspect strategy
x3
(1) matches lineup members to the suspect’s appearance.
(2) If taken to the extreme,
this strategy would produce
a lineup of clones—everyone would look exactly like the suspect, making it virtually impossible to identify the perpetrator.
(3) difficulty with this strategy is that there are many physical features that could be matched.
60
Quality & Accuracy of Eyewitness descriptions Of perpetrators
x7
(1) hair colour and hairstyle were reported most accurately.
(2) Only 52% of witnesses were accurate when identifying the height of the perpetrator.
(3) witnesses had difficulty correctly reporting weight (27% accuracy), eye colour (24% accuracy), and type of footwear.
(4) Research examining perpetrator descriptions provided by witnesses finds that descriptions are
limited in detail and accuracy.
(5) On average, witnesses reported eight descriptors.
(6) researchers found that sex and height were the items most often reported.
(7) Witnesses were correct 100% of the time when identifying the sex of the perpetrator
61
Estimating Identification Accuracy
x3
(1) create two lineups in research
(2) the target-absent lineup: substitute the perpetrator’s picture with another photo.
(3) target-present lineup—contains a picture of the perpetrator
62
Confidence in relation To eyewitness accuracy
x4
(1) appears to be a small positive
correlation between accuracy and confidence.
(2) the confidence the witness expresses in the courtroom may be inflated.
(3) the more often you express a decision, the greater your confidence in subsequent reports.
(4) confidence can be manipulated and inflated, thereby affecting the confidence–accuracy relation.
63
Methods of perpetrator
Identification other than
Lineups
x4
1. Walk-by
2. Showup
3. video-recorded lineups
4. Photo array is the term used for
photographic lineups
64
Methods of perpetrator
Identification other than
Lineups
WALK-BY
x2
1) may precede a lineup identification
2) occurs in a naturalistic environment. The police take the witness to a public location where the suspect is likely to be. Once the suspect is in view, the witness is asked whether he or she sees the perpetrator.
65
Methods of perpetrator
Identification other than
Lineups
Showup
x4
1. Identification procedure that shows one person to the witness: the suspect.
2. witness is asked whether the person is the perpetrator.
3. because there are no other lineup members shown, the witness is aware of whom the police suspect, and this knowledge may increase a witness’s likelihood of making an identification that may be false.
4. only two acceptable uses of a showup:
(A) It may be used for deathbed identifications, when there is a fear that the witness will not be alive by the time a lineup is assembled.
(B) Also, police may use a showup if a suspect is apprehended immediately at or near the crime scene.
66
Methods of perpetrator
Identification other than
Lineups
video-recorded lineups
x2
(1) the ability to enlarge faces or focus on particular features.
(2) Lineup members can be shown walking, turning, and talking.
67
Methods of perpetrator
Identification other than
Lineups
Photo array is the term used for
photographic lineups
x7
(1) They are portable.
(2) The police are able to bring the photo array to the witness rather than have the witness go to the police department.
(3) The suspect does not have the right to counsel
being present when a witness looks at a photo array. This right is present with live lineups.
4) witness may be less anxious examining a photo
array than a live lineup.
(5) photos are static the police need not worry that the suspect’s behaviour may draw attention to herself thus invalidating the photo array.
(6) less time-consuming to construct.
(7) The police can choose foils from their mug shot (pictures of people who have been charged with crimes in the past) files rather than find live persons.
68
Problems in constructing An identification test For witnesses to a crime
x3
(1) A false rejection is an unknown error and may result in the guilty suspect going free and possibly committing further crimes.
(2) false identification also is an unknown error in real life and may result in the innocent suspect
being prosecuted and convicted for a crime he or she did not commit. with a false identification, the
real criminal remains free to commit further crimes
(3) foil identification is a known error to the police, so the person identified will not be prosecuted.
- The witness may be perceived as having a faulty memory.
- the other details provided by this witness may be viewed with some skepticism because a known recognition error was made.
69
Estimator variables
x3
(1) Race
(2) Age
(3) Weapon Focus
70
Estimator variables
- Race
x5
(1) Potential for mistaken Identification of First Nations people is high Regardless of the race of eyewitness
(2) Physiognomic Homogeneity: Have less variability In their faces.
(3) Interracial Contact: The more contact
You have with other Races, the better you Will be able to identify Them.
(4) Attitude: Prejudicial attitudes May be related to Amount of contact A person has with other-
Race members.
(5) Cross-Race effect: Phenomenon of
Witnesses remembering Own-race faces with
Greater accuracy than Faces from other races.
71
Estimator variables
-Age
x5
(1) Differences in ability To make correct identifications Have not been found between Younger & older adults.
(2) Older adults make Fewer correct rejections.
(3) Greater correct identifications Were obtained with simultaneous Lineup than with sequential for
Both groups.
(4) Older more likely to Make a false positive
Than younger when Shown a target-absent
Lineup, regardless of Procedure used.
(5) Older adult witnesses May Have more difficulty
In making correct rejection Decisions.
72
Estimator variables
-Weapon Focus
x6
(1) Factors such as Retention interval,
Exposure duration, And threat were found To influence.
(2) Witness’s attention Being focused on the
Perpetrator’s weapon rather Than on the perpetrator.
(3) Will remember less About the crime &
Perpetrator when a weapon Is present.
(4) Cue-utilization Hypothesis: When emotional arousal Increases, attentional capacity Decreases.
(5) With limited attentional Capacity, central details, Such as the weapon, are
More likely to be encoded Than peripheral details,
Such as hair colour.
(6) Weapons are unusual And thus, attract a
Witness’s attention.
73
GUIDELINES FOR
LINEUPS
x5
(1) person who conducts the lineup
or photo array should not know which person is the suspect.
(2) Eyewitnesses should be told explicitly that the
criminal may not be present in the lineup and,
therefore, witnesses should not feel that they
must make an identification.
(3) The suspect should not stand out
in the lineup as being different from the
foils based on the eyewitness’s previous
description of the criminal or based on other factors. That would draw extra attention to the suspect.
(4) clear statement should be taken from
the eyewitness at the time of the identification and prior to any feedback as to his or her confidence that the identified person is the actual criminal.
(5) The photo lineup procedure with the witness
should be videotaped or audiotaped from the
point the officer greets the witness to the
completion of the interview.
74
Debate about Usefulness of
Eyewitness research for
Court purposes
x10
(1) Eyewitness research Uses a number of Methodologies and Types of participants.
(2) Number of studies Are highly reliable.
(3) Some researchers have found Participants demonstrated a Greater accuracy with regard
To eyewitness issues than has Been found in the past with the Lay public.
(4) Studies show lay public May not be sufficiently
Knowledgeable about eyewitness Issues to evaluate this evidence In court.
(5) Many results found with Eyewitness studies are
Counterintuitive & contradict The common-sense beliefs of Those in the community.
(6) Experts are overconfident In their conclusions and Have thus misled the courts About validity, consistency, And generalizability of the data.
(7) Number of weaknesses were Outlined that limit its usefulness To real-world application and
Experts testifying.
(8) Studies examine the same Issue produce different results.
(9) Most studies involve University students;
Real-life witnesses vary In age and other demographic Variables.
(10) Most studies allow witness To view perpetrator for 6 seconds; In reality, witness may view the Perpetrator for 5 or more minutes.
