Study Guides (248,639)
Canada (121,653)
Psychology (970)
PSYCH 3CC3 (68)
Midterm

Eyewitness Testimony.docx

6 Pages
103 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYCH 3CC3
Professor
Richard B Day

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Description
Eyewitness Testimony - not always as reliable as we think, but sways jury the most - DNA sequencing is more reliable than eyewitness testimony – has released more people that it has convinced The Memory System - memory = adaptation - we don’t have to remember everything – some things are useless or maladaptive (ie. First two years of life) - we don’t store info about repetitive events (useless) - we combine bits of sensory information into complete memory o we reconstruct memory to include things we wanted to happen or expected to happen even if they did not - memory doesn’t have to be 100% accurate all the time o more adaptive if its not (ie. Remembering something as not your fault) Encoding – putting events in forms we can use/store - exposure duration  shorter exposure led to lower correct identification o longer exposure = more encoding - arousal level  moderate levels of arousals are best; both high and low reduce accuracy for encoding - distraction o inattentional blindness (not noticing something you’re not paying attention to) o change blindess (not noticing changes you are not paying attention to) o increased number of perpetrators degrades memory o weapon focus – more likely to recall aspects of weapon than of the offender holding it - distinctiveness – improves recall, but “flashbulb” memories are not that accurate o Example: Challenger shuttle explosion - people asked about a scenario once, and then again many years later, will tell two different stories but not notice any discrepancy; just as confident in both reports Storage/Retrieval - our expectations determine what we see - labelling – in a study participants were shown images with a given label (ie. Sun labeled dog”; when subjects were asked to reproduce the images, they were based on the label - prejudices and biases – picture of white painter yelling at a tall black man in a suit and tie; when later asked, white people may describe the black man as the short grubby painter to match their prejudice o self serving bias – recall more positive experience  recall thing based on assumptions that may not have even happened - inferences – expectations; experiment where students were in a professors office – many recalled there being books when there were none - interpolated testing/retelling – enhanced recall quantity for material tested o easier to retrieve if you’ve been asked about it before; unrehearsed info will be forgotten - leading questions – suggestive o not allowed in trials, but can be asked in nterviews where it would already effect the testimony o example: how tall was the basketball player? = 79 inches. How short was the basketball player? = 69 inches o the wording can influence memory  Loftus – using words like frequently vs occasionally or a table vs the table  Bumped/smashed/hit/collided  the word used influenced memory of how intense the scene was  Those who were given a more intense word recalled there being glass at the scene when there was none (a week later) - misleading post-event information (PEI) o exposed to inaccurate info that they then remember as true Creating completely false memories - “lost in the mall” study – imagining false events increases beliefs in them Verbal description of offenders - Demonstrations show that ability to identify offender is varied (in a group that all witnessed the same event) Kuehn (1974) – average 7.2 descriptors - The best descriptors (ie. Face descriptions) are the least ones provided - Most often mentioned are gender, age, height, build, race, weight, complexion, hair colour – mentioned 70% of the time - (clothing absent from list) Sporer (1992) – 9.71 descriptors - 31% of descriptors related to clothes - but not useful because its easily changed - face descriptors included upper half, especially hair – also not useful; shape of face would be more helpful Lindsay (1994) – examined descriptions of real criminals and compared their completeness with descriptions contained in lab studies - Mock Crime Witnesses – most likely to report clothing, hair color, and height, fewer than 50% report obvious characteristics (sex/age/race) o More details than real witnesses - Real Crime Witnesses – most likely to report gender, hair colour, clothing, race/ethnicity. Facial features fewer than 10% Van Koppen & Lochun (1997) – provided 24 permanent aspects of offender and 19 temporary aspects - of maximum 43 descriptors, witness provides mean of 8 - permament features mentioned more often - fewer than 5% refer to inner facial features (and most of it was wrong) - majority of temporary descriptions were clothing (hats, jackets, and colours) Yuille & Cutshall (1986) – examined 21 witnesses to single shooting; follow up interview 5 months later - reported accounts to be elaborate and accurate - action details, person descriptions, object descriptions - everything was very accurate EXCEPT facial hair Estimates of height and weight are not highly correlated with actual
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit