Mapa mental
Eyewitness Testimony
Contenido del mapa
Eyewitness Testimony
Defination
- A person who gives to an account by given a recall of an event of someone committing a crime. The person describes what happens.
- Leading Question: A question phrased in a manner that tends to suggest the desired answer e.g. What do you think of the horrible effects of pollution
Effect of misleading information on eyewitness testimony
- Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 1
- Participants were shown a film of a multiple car crash. They were then asked a series of questions including 'How fast do you think the cars were going when they hit?' In different conditions, the word 'hit' was replaced with 'Smashed' 'collided', 'bumped' or 'contacted'.
- It was seen that participants given the word 'Smashed' estimated the highest speed (an average of 41mph), and those given the word 'contacted' gave the lowest estimate (an average of 32mph).
- Experiment 2
- The participants were split into three groups. One group was given the verb "smashed", another "hit" and the third, control group wasn't given any indication of the vehicles speed. A week later the participants were asked 'Did you see any broken glass?'
- Conclusion: Leading questions can effect the accuracy of people's memories of an event.
- The participants were split into three groups. One group was given the verb "smashed", another "hit" and the third, control group wasn't given any indication of the vehicles speed. A week later the participants were asked 'Did you see any broken glass?'
- Evaluation
- Watching a video is not as emotionally arousing as a real life event, which potentially affects recall.
- The leading questions might have given participants clues about the nature of the experiment and so participants clues about the nature of the experiment and so participants might have acted accordingly. This would reduce the validity and reliability of the experiments.
- Participants were shown a film of a multiple car crash. They were then asked a series of questions including 'How fast do you think the cars were going when they hit?' In different conditions, the word 'hit' was replaced with 'Smashed' 'collided', 'bumped' or 'contacted'.
- Support-Loftus and Zanni (1975)
- Showed participants brief car accident film and then asked questions. Half the participants were asked about a broken headlight while the other half were asked about the broken headlight in the question. There was no broken headlight though in the film.
- 17% asked about the broken headlight said yes to their being a broken headlight compared to only 7% of group who were asked about a broken headlight.
- Conclusion: Different wording of questions can bring out alternative memories.
- 17% asked about the broken headlight said yes to their being a broken headlight compared to only 7% of group who were asked about a broken headlight.
- Showed participants brief car accident film and then asked questions. Half the participants were asked about a broken headlight while the other half were asked about the broken headlight in the question. There was no broken headlight though in the film.
- Loftus and Palmer (1974) Experiment 1
Effect of anxiety on eyewitness testimony
- Loftus 1979
- Weapon effect-how anxiety affects memory recall.
- Participants were asked to sit outside a laboratory where they thought they were sitting inside the laboratory. In one condition they heard a peaceful discussion about equipment failure. A man came out of the laboratory with greasy hands holding a pen.
- In the other condition the discussion they heard was hostile and it followed by breaking glass and overturned furniture sounds. A man came out of the laboratory holding a knife with blood on it.
- People who had witnessed peaceful scene were able to identify man who came out of the lab from 50 photos. People who experienced violent scene couldn't identify person holding knife.
- Conclusion: Weapon narrowed the focus of attention for the witness so they didn't focus on mans face.
- Evaluation
- Loftus lacks ecological validity because it is taken place in a laboratory where levels of stress in real life events can't be the same in a laboratory
- Evaluation
- Conclusion: Weapon narrowed the focus of attention for the witness so they didn't focus on mans face.
- People who had witnessed peaceful scene were able to identify man who came out of the lab from 50 photos. People who experienced violent scene couldn't identify person holding knife.
- In the other condition the discussion they heard was hostile and it followed by breaking glass and overturned furniture sounds. A man came out of the laboratory holding a knife with blood on it.
- Participants were asked to sit outside a laboratory where they thought they were sitting inside the laboratory. In one condition they heard a peaceful discussion about equipment failure. A man came out of the laboratory with greasy hands holding a pen.
- Weapon effect-how anxiety affects memory recall.
- Doesn't support-Christianson and Hubinette (1993)
- Effect of anxiety on memory recall.
- Done a survey where 110 people had to recall events of a bank robbery they had either witnessed or being threatened in real life. Between them they had been in 22 bank robberies that were real. Some had been bystanders-others were threatened by robbers.
- People who had been threatened by bank robbers (higher anxiety) give more details and accurate recall than onlookers.
- Conclusion: This contradicts Loftus investigation since it says that higher anxiety people remember events better than less stressful people (peaceful). Loftus says the opposite to this.
- People who had been threatened by bank robbers (higher anxiety) give more details and accurate recall than onlookers.
- Done a survey where 110 people had to recall events of a bank robbery they had either witnessed or being threatened in real life. Between them they had been in 22 bank robberies that were real. Some had been bystanders-others were threatened by robbers.
- Effect of anxiety on memory recall.
- Loftus 1979
Effect of Age on eyewitness testimony
- Poole and Lindsay (2001)
- Investigate whether children are more likely than adults to absorb post event information into their original memory.
- Poole and Lindsay engaged children 3 to years in science demostration. Parents read them a story which contained some elements of science demostration but also included novel information. The children were questioned on science demonstration.
- They found that information about the science demonstration mostly came from parents story. They were asked to think about where they got their new information from. Some of the older children revised their account of the science demostration and extracted post event information. Younger children couldn't do this.
- Conclusion: Young children testimony seems poor at source monitoring (recallling where they got their information from).
- Evaluation
- Investigators have to be particularly careful when using children especially age 3-4 to make sure they understood instruction and pay attention.
- Young children can't give consent on their own behalf. Parents must do this. Good parents were involved so children were familiar with people and less scared of investigators
- Evaluation
- Conclusion: Young children testimony seems poor at source monitoring (recallling where they got their information from).
- They found that information about the science demonstration mostly came from parents story. They were asked to think about where they got their new information from. Some of the older children revised their account of the science demostration and extracted post event information. Younger children couldn't do this.
- Poole and Lindsay engaged children 3 to years in science demostration. Parents read them a story which contained some elements of science demostration but also included novel information. The children were questioned on science demonstration.
- Investigate whether children are more likely than adults to absorb post event information into their original memory.
- Support for Poole and Lindsay-Flin et al (1992)
- Questioned children and adults one day after an incident and then again five months later.
- Findings: No differences in amount of recall after one day but children forgot a lot after 5 months. This is important given the long decays that occur bettween a crime being committed and court proceedings.
- Questioned children and adults one day after an incident and then again five months later.
- Poole and Lindsay (2001)
Cognitive Interview
- On a basis of research such as Geiselman et al (1985) developed the cogntive interview technique as a more effective tool for police investigators. They identified four principles they believed would enchance accurate recall.
- To recreate the context of the original incident-trying to recall an image of the setting, including details such as the weather, the lighting distinctive smells, people nearby, what you were feeling at the time etc
- Report every detail- any information about the event you can remember.
- Recall the event in different orders-start with aspect of scene which seems most memorable and work backwards or forwards from that point.
- To change perspectives-describe event from perspective of other people present at the time.
- Recall the event in different orders-start with aspect of scene which seems most memorable and work backwards or forwards from that point.
- Report every detail- any information about the event you can remember.
- To recreate the context of the original incident-trying to recall an image of the setting, including details such as the weather, the lighting distinctive smells, people nearby, what you were feeling at the time etc
- Research into cognitive interview-Geiselman
- Procedure: They showed police training videos of violent crimes to a group of 89 students. About 48 hours later American law enforcement officers interviwed the students. The interviewers had either been trained in standard police interviewing techniques or in the new cognitve interview
- Findings: The students recalled far more in the cognitive interview than in the standard, although error rates were similar.
- Evaluation
- Could be criticised for artificiality as the watched videotapes.
- Bakerian and Dennett (1993) reviewed 27 studies and found in all cases cogntive interview provided most accurate info.
- Evaluation
- Findings: The students recalled far more in the cognitive interview than in the standard, although error rates were similar.
- Procedure: They showed police training videos of violent crimes to a group of 89 students. About 48 hours later American law enforcement officers interviwed the students. The interviewers had either been trained in standard police interviewing techniques or in the new cognitve interview
- On a basis of research such as Geiselman et al (1985) developed the cogntive interview technique as a more effective tool for police investigators. They identified four principles they believed would enchance accurate recall.
Información
- Descripción
- Mapa Mental sobre Eyewitness Testimony, creado por dan15 el 30/04/2016.
- Creado por
- dan15
- Visitas
- 0
- Valoración