236389
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von gloriachan, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von gloriachan
vor etwa 11 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Memory and the Law (Eye-witness) Issues | * Recognise faces * Eye-witness identification methods * Eye-witness memory |
| Issues with Recognising Faces (Link to Face Recognition and LTM) | * (Bruce & Young 1986) Face recognition involves two different forms of description at encoding stage * Encoding familiar face requires both view-centred/pictorial and expression-independent description (in different contexts and viewpoints) * Bruce 1982 found face recognition test of unfamiliar faces presented in different view point dropped in the delayed-test condition than in the immediately-test condition * Encoding unfamiliar face requires only view-centred (e.g. superficial features only) * Information specific to the scene of the crime is also important for successful identification according to the Encoding Specificity Theory (Tulving 1983) |
| Issues with Identification Methods Line-Ups (Link to LTM, Decision Making) | * Wells (1978) suggested two groups of variables influence eye-witness identification * Accuracy variables: estimator variable (things occurred at encoding e.g. stress and viewing distance; they cannot be controlled) / system variable: refer to procedural issues e.g. line-up construction, interview method; these are under direct control of legal system * Other factors affecting accuracy (Wells and Olson 2001) are: suspect bias caused by line-up composition / own age or race bias * Simultaneous vs sequential: Simultaneous (several suspects at the same time / Sequential: one suspect at a time through VIPER-video parades) * Sequential superiority effect (Steblay et al 2001), based on meta-analysis but this effect was questioned by split meta-analysis (McQuiston-Surrett et al 2006) which showed target-absent line-ups - better with sequential line-ups and target-present line-ups - better with simultaneous line-ups * Witness decision making in line-ups * Relative decision-making strategy may be adopted in simultaneous line-up as witness comparing and choosing the best match to the perpetrator * Absolute decision-making strategy is used in sequential line-up as each person is seen separately so the witness cannot compare and has to match the fact to their memory of the perpetrator. * Consequently the law has changed to use Video line-ups (VIPER) |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Stress | Deffenbacher et al (2004) showed high stress impaired line-up identification and memory of the crime. This is also supported by an ecologically valid study |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Misinformation Effect | * Misinformation effect: post-event info can affect memory. Three hypothesis: (1) over-writing initial trace (Loftus et al 1978); (2) both traces are stored and simply biased by misleading info (McCloskey and Zaragoza 1985, Chandler et al 2001); (3) source monitoring (Johnson et al 1993) - source of memory is not labelled so whilst witness retains memories of both the event and post event info, they are unable to identify the source * sources are attributed during remembering through an unconscious decision process (Johnson et al 1993) Reality monitoring - ability to distinguish internally generated memories and externally acquired information External source monitoring - able to distinguish between externally derived sources Internal source monitoring - able to discriminate between different internally generated sources |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Reconstructive Memory | remembering is a reconstructive process. People use scripts and schematic knowledge to fill in gaps (Bartlett 1932). Reconstructive memory is also prone to distortion which can occur when initial information and post event information is inconsistent (Spiro 1980) |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Social Pressure | - Gabbert et al 2004 found misinformation conveyed through discussion with a confederate is more powerful than a written narrative. * Garry et al 2008 found co-witness effects - PPs who conformed during the discussion reported the misleading information 85% of the time. Echterhoff et al 2005 also found the misinformation effect is weakened or disappears if credibility of the misinformation is undermined. |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Children Eye-witness | Children report less information than adults Older children are more prone to emotional and social demands (Bottoms et al 2002 – secret keeping experiment found older children are more influenced by emotional and social pressure and prone to concealing info than younger children. Younger children report less than older children. This may be explained by Fuzzy Trace Model (Brainerd and Reyna 1990). This model suggests there are multiple memory traces for each event/experience. These traces are represented by either verbatim representation or gist representation. Pre school children rely mainly on verbatim info which is prone to decay. Whereas older children rely on both but more inclined to use gist info including schematic knowledge. Children’s memory is more prone to be influenced by stereotyping. |
| Issues with Eye-witness Memory Cognitive Interview | - based on the Encoding Specificity principle (Tulving 1983), i.e. better recall if cues at encoding match the cues at retrieval. - developed as standard interview to address the problem caused by subject questions or misleading questions (Loftus and Palmer 1974) - cognitive interview includes different stages: building rapport, free recall, mentally travel back to the scene and describe using different senses, report details in different order and from different perspectives - quality and quantity of info is better but time consuming so modified cognitive interview was developed (Dando et al 2009) which replace mentally reinstate the scene by drawing a sketch of the scene and cues are generated by the witness rather than the interviewer. The modified version is as effective but reduce time. |
| Jury and Decision Making (Link to LTM, concepts) | Three-Stage ‘Story’Model (Pennington and Hastie 1986) Suggests jury understand and interpret the evidence in three stages: 1> Evaluating stage: Gathering and evaluating evidence and form own story based on pre existing knowledge and expectation 2> Generating theories: regarding verdict they can make based on own understanding and judge’s instructions 3> Matching process: matching the best story that adequately explains the evidence to the verdict Issues: - Jury relies heavily on pre-existing knowledge (schema) - Juror fill in gaps with typical information - Decision is often made during the trial when they actively processing info and fitting it to match their schema. - Story best fits the evidence determines the verdict - Schema wins over when evidence is conflicting - Difficulty in understanding expert evidence will lead to the juror having a schema that is distorted or missing vita information (Tinsely 2000) - Tinsley suggested a written factual summary outlining the key evidence at the start of trail will provide a coherent framework for juror to build the schema around it. |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.