RM: Laverenne et al (2013)

RM: Laverenne et al (2013)

1. Weapon Focus

   • The weapon being used by the perpetrator becomes dominant in the eyes of the witness in comparison to other crucial stimuli like the perpetrators facial features and clothing, leading to severe inconsistencies in memory
   • Evaluation
     • Johnson and Scott (1976), investigated the effect of anxiety on the reliability of EWT. Participants were invited to a laboratory and were then exposed to one of two conditions in which a person (the target) left the laboratory either holding a pen or a bloodied knife. The participants were shown 50 photos and asked to identify the person. Those in the pen condition correctly identified the target 49% of the time, compared to 33% in the knife condition. Loftus claimed that the participants who were exposed to the knife had higher levels of anxiety and were more likely to focus their attention on the weapon (known as the weapon focus effect). This suggests that anxiety can affect the reliability of EWT.
     • However Kerri Pickel (1998) found a similar effect when a man pulled out a raw chicken or a Pilsbury Dough Boy to pay a cashier rather than presenting his wallet. This suggests that ‘weapon focus’ is related to surprise as much as anxiety.

2. Misinformation Effect

   • Exposure to false or misleading information can distort or alter a persons' memory of that event
   • Evaluation
     • Lindholm and Christianson (1998) analysed the accuracy of EWT in real-life criminal cases focusing on Swedish police data. They found that EW who expressed confidence in their recollections were more likely to provide accurate descriptions (over 80% of the time). The study also found that stress and emotional arousal during the event could reduce the accuracy of the witnesses’ memory. They found that witnesses who were asked to recall events shortly after the crime were more accurate than those whose memories were tested after several days or weeks. They finally found that those who had seen the perpetrator previously or had knowledge of their appearance were more likely to provide accurate testimonies
     • Research from The Innocence Project has highlighted that EWT can lead to wrongful convictions and is too unreliable to be the only form of evidence for convictions. Eyewitness misidentification is a leading cause of wrongful convictions in the US and in many cases, witnesses have confidently identified the wrong person, which has led to the conviction of innocent individuals. The project highlights that witness confidence is not always an indicator of accuracy. Research shows that the confidence of an eyewitness often increases over time,even if their memory is incorrect. Eyewitness testimony can be influenced by many factors like police line-ups, suggestive questioning or stress can distort a witness's memory and lead to inaccurate identifications

3. Anxiety

   • Experiencing a dramatic event is likely to be stressful for a witness and this may affect their ability to recall events concurrent with such stress/anxiety
   • Evaluation
     • Johnson and Scott (1976), investigated the effect of anxiety on the reliability of EWT. Participants were invited to a laboratory and were then exposed to one of two conditions in which a person (the target) left the laboratory either holding a pen or a bloodied knife. The participants were shown 50 photos and asked to identify the person. Those in the pen condition correctly identified the target 49% of the time, compared to 33% in the knife condition. Loftus claimed that the participants who were exposed to the knife had higher levels of anxiety and were more likely to focus their attention on the weapon (known as the weapon focus effect). This suggests that anxiety can affect the reliability of EWT.
     • However, a real-life case study by Yuille and Cutshall (1986) contradicts the results of Johnson and Scott. Yuille and Cutshall investigated the effect of anxiety in a real-life shooting and found that the 13 witnesses who took part in the follow up interview were accurate in their eyewitness accounts five months later, and little change was found in their testimonies. All of the major details of their reports remained the same suggesting that the anxiety experienced at the time of the event had little or no effect on their subsequent memory for the event and the reliability of their EWT.

4. Leading Questions

   • Questions that are often used by interviewers which lead a person to a specific or desired answer
   • Evaluation
     • Loftus and Palmer (1974) examined 3 groups of students who watched a 1 minute video of a car accident. One group was asked 'how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?', the other group was asked the same question but with the verb 'hit'. 1 week later they were asked 'did you see any broken glass?', despite there being none. 32% of participants in the 'smashed' condition said yes, compared to 14% and 12% in the 'hit' and control condition respectively. This suggests that misleading questions can significantly affect the reliability of EWT and make people report seeing things they didn't.
     • A limitation of Loftus and Palmer's research is that their study lacks population validity. Their experiments consisted of 150 American students. It is reasonable to argue that the students in their experiment were less experienced drivers, who may be less accurate at estimating speeds. Consequently, we are unable to generalise the results to other populations, for example, older and more experienced drivers who may be more accurate in their judgement of speed and therefore not as susceptible to leading questions.

5. Conclusions

   • CBM-I has significant symptom effect in one week, combined intervention significantly reduces depressive symptoms and the intergration of a 'bottom-up' approach into more traditional 'top-down' iCBT may be a useful addition

6. Aim

   • To assess the efficacy of CBM-I on: Depression severity + Distress + Cognitive biases and to assess whether CBM-I could improve the effectiveness of iCBT

7. Evaluation

   • Strengths: participants had a right to withdraw, screening process helps to remove extraneous variables, gained quantitative data and the use of a control group increases validity because we know CBM-I + iCBT is effective because we compare to people who receive no treatment
   • Weaknesses: Issues with using self-reporting measures, More severely depressed people are less likely to have the motivation and want for treatment/help, Quantitative data lacks validity (two identical BDI-II scores could represent different experiences) and No active control group within the study, we don't know if CBM-I and iCBT is more effective than iCBT alone

8. Method

   • Volunteer sample from a psychiatric clinic in Australia Participants were screened for issues like comorbid disorders, certain medications and having completed similar interventions before. 69 participants were allocated to one of two groups: Intervention group (38) + Waitlist control group (31)
   • Measures: Depression severity using the BDI-II (Beck depression inventory) + Distress using the K10 (Kessler psychological distress scale) + Negative cognitive bias using the AST-D (Ambiguous scenarios test-depression)

9. Procedure

   • Time Point 1) All participants complete measures- Intervention group complete a 20min session of CBM-I every day for 1 week whilst the control group (WLC) did nothing
   • Time Point 2) Participants completed the measures again- The intervention group receive 10 weeks of iCBT whilst the control group (WLC) did nothing
   • Time Point 3) Participants completed the measures again (minus the AST-D) and the control group completed 10 weeks of iCBT

10. Results

    • The overall pattern showed that the intervention group improved more than the control group in every measure
    • AST-D Score went up for intervention, and down for the control group- 65% of intervention showed clinically significant improvement
    • K10 Measures: At the second time point, the intervention group received a 5 point reduction and at the third time point, the intervention group received an 8 point reduction
    • BDI-II Measures: At the second time point, the intervention group received a 6 point reduction and at the third time point, the intervention group received a 10 point reduction

11. Aim

    • To describe how a therapy group can provide a firm boundary within which individuals can explore their own fragile ego boundaries and the group also aimed to develop a feeling of connectedness among individuals who are fairly isolated

12. Conclusions

    • Brett showed that the participants are working hard to create a containment boundary within the group, and that the group identity can create a space to hold the ego together
    • Earl showed that group members are hesitant to form interpersonal connections as these can reduce the stability of the ego. This leads to isolation as a defence mechanism

13. Procedure

    • Consisted of 10 members, receiving drug treatments, who had a vulnerability to psychosis. A coding system was created which helped the therapists to record the emotions expressed as well as thoughts, behaviours and verbal content

14. Results

    • Earl- African American Schizophrenic:
    • Brett- Irish Catholic Schizophrenic:

15. Evaluation

    • ✅Case studies allow us to study phenomena that we could not otherwise research ✅Case studies have a high level of depth and detail (greater validity)
    • Weaknesses: ❌Case studies are open to potential ethical issues ❌Results of case studies can lack generalisability ❌Researchers may also lack objectivity due to bias and knowledge of the participants ❌Lack of reliability since the study cannot be retested ❌The interpretation of the data is subject to researcher bias (conclusion is dependent on what they want to find)

16. Aim

    • Investigation of the usefulness of psycho-educational material provided via group work for offender patients in a high-security psychiatric hospital

17. Procedure

    • Four 20-session UMI groups were run over a period of 3 years (consisting of 9 patients) Two outcome measures were given pre- and post-group: Clinical outcomes in routine evaluation (CORE-OM) -a low score indicated fewer problems + The self-concept questionnaire (SCQ) that measures self-esteem
    • The sample was 42 male patients who were referred to the UMI psycho-educational group because they were judged to be able to gain from further information and/or they currently lacked insight about their condition Using the ICD-10 they found 80% of the sample had been diagnosed as having Schizophrenia, Schizotypal and Delusional disorders
    • A semi-structured interview was conducted to evaluate the participants experience of the group, how it could be improved and what they had gained The interviews were then analysed by identifying themes and conducting a content analysis (with a 60% average level of agreement)

18. Results

    • There was no significant difference between any of the pre- and post-tests between the groups after a statistical test Clinically significant change occurred across all 4 scaled of CORE-OM On the SCQ there were more cases of change and over 50% reported an improved self-esteem However, some patients showed a negative shift
      • Data from the interviews was analysed into 4 categories: 1. What participants valued and why 2. What was helpful about the group 3. Clinical implications identified by patients 4. What was difficult/unhelpful

19. Conclusion

    • The absence of reliable changes warrants attention as does a further consideration of the negative changes in some patients and the qualitative analysis of the interviews showed that patients did value the sense of hope and empowerment provided

20. Evaluation

    • Strengths: ✅Gives qualitative data- richer, greater insight into subjective experiences ✅Use of closed questions allows for reliability and objectivity ✅Follow-up questions can be used to provide further insight or to get a participant to clarify their thoughts/ideas
    • Weaknesses: ❌More time consuming to analyse and interpret the qualitative data ❌Hard to repeat the interview since participants may have all been asked different questions (semi-structured) ❌The participant may be likely to show demand characteristics if they begin to know what the interviewer may be looking for ❌Social desirability may also impact the answers given for fear of judgement about a personal mental illness ❌The interviewer could asks leading questions which are influenced by researcher bias ❌Non-verbal cues could also be given unknowingly

Images and files in the map