Chapter 16 Linear notes

Seite 1

Eyewitness Identification

real life application e.g. legal system

Face recognition: models e.g. IAC problematic bc based on familiar faces

Pictorial and structural face descriptions, pictorial - external e.g. whole face, structural - constructive and detailed

ESP - lack of congruency between cues at encoding and retrieval re details

Lineups

estimator variables: present @ encoding e.g. viewing distance, stress, lighting - can't be controlled

system variables: procedural e.g. sim or seq - can be controlled

important in research bc real life application re refining procedures - PACE guidelines e.g. at least 8 in lineup

Sim and Seq: meta anal revealed seq more accurate and efficient - data splitting revealed target present better for sim and target absent better for seq - procedural diffs re efficiency

Decision making: non-bias instructions but still indiv diffs re procedure and decisions - how/why? sim - relative, seq - absolute (comparison/no comparison) - sim target absent but lineup context still influences wrong decisions - seq reduces expectation effect bc no comparisons

Video lineups: less costly and time consuming, reduces biases e.g. own race and own age

Stress - Yerkes-Dodson - EWM - questioned re good measure of stress - 3D model - cog anxiety - physio reaction - causal effect - increases memory until optimal arousal point reached

target present more than absent, especially eco rather than lav

London dungeon - anxiety led to poorer performance on questionnaire and line up ID but military study interrogation - high anxiety improved memory - indiv diffs? MDM? more research needed

Misleading information

Loftus 1974,78,80 (smash/collide, stop/yield, faces)

Susceptibility: empathy, introversion, visual imagery ability, time between event and misinfo, mistrust own memory

Cog aspect: original memory distorted by integration with misinfo - questioned re insufficient encoding leads to response bias not memory bias

Source monitoring: differentiate between original memory and misinfo - reality, internal, external - can increase resistance - original memory intact - imagery, delay and knowledge can reduce source monitoring and lead to misinfo effect

Reconstructive: Bartlett War of the Ghosts - memory plus knowledge and expectations - schemas and scripts - active construction not whole entity - if schema fits with misinfo this can increase misinfo effect

Social influences: credibility warnings - resistance, conformity and co-witnesses - strongest effects than other conditions - even with warnings - desire to confirm - social dimension

Social and cog: both important - social influences include (interaction occurs): normative - desire for approval & informative - desire to be accurate

Memory and the social context

Goals affect recall

Goal to tell story in social situation: fabrication and inconsistencies

Goal for being accurate in lab/for specific purpose: more accurate and less irrel detail

Cog interview: rapport, free recall, recall from diff viewpoint, diff senses, revisit

Effective? rapport helps power balance an effective communication plus method good with young children and the elderly

Not effective? more inaccuracies than standard lab but is this because more details recalled in general?

Modified cog interview: draw sketch of scene - good for generating own retrieval strategies without interference from interviewer plus less time consuming

Children as eyewitnesses

older children more resistant to suggestibility

older children more accurate coinciding with cog function age

fuzzy trace - verbatim and gist - more verbatim for younger children which decays over time whilst older children more gist which is more endurable

reconstructive e.g. stereotypes "bad" person - identify in lineup

socioemotional factors: motivation to conceal affected older children recall accuracy - no effect from type of question (suggestive/specific) so social context affected standard expected pattern of older children recall

Decision making in a jury context

3 stage model: 1) active interpretive - accumulate evidence and combine with own knowledge, 2) law info, 3) match between the two to find best fit for verdict

mock jurors bc illegal to use real - categorization based on prototype features (properties and concepts) - use own knowledge and experience as well as legal info - preference for own knowledge over law - implications for real life?

decision making occurs during trial not deliberation - supports Bartlett and 3 stage model - reconstructive processing of info and integrating with schema - can lead to distortion

Presentation of evidence - jurors say it can be confusing and needs improvements - tech advances have helped in US - need them in UK