Showed slides in a restaurant: either of a customer with a gun or chequebook. 15% of gun = identified customer, 35% of gun identified customer. Those in gun condition = spent more time with eyes on the weapon.
1 of 18
Weapon Focus STRENGTH- Fawcett et al (2013)
Meta-Analysis on weapon focus. They concluded weapon presene demonstreated a negative effect on feature accuracy and identification under controlled conditions as well as real-life situations
2 of 18
Weapon Focus STRENGTH- Johnson and Scott (1976)
Ppl outside lab. No weapon condition = heard convo about equipment failure and someone entered the room with a grease pen. Weapon = ppl heard arguing and objects crashing then a person holding a bloody letter opener. Weapon/no weapon = 33%/49%.
3 of 18
Weapon Focus WEAKNESS- Pickel (1998)
Video of man at hair salon paying for things. In other hand = nothing (control group), scissors, handgun, wallet, or raw chicken. Chicken + gun = poorest recall of man. Wallet + scissors = better recall. Shows unusual object causes less recall
4 of 18
Weapon Focus WEAKNESS- Wagstaff et al (2003)
Looked at info about real-life events on police records like victims of robberies, assaults + rapes. Interviews compared against police description of primary suspect. Found no evidence of any effect weapon focus had on feature accuracy
5 of 18
Post-Event Information STRENGTH- Loftus and Palmer (1974)
Found that participants speed estimates fluctuated based on the verb used to describe the type of collision. Example: Smashed (40.5mph)/ Bumped (38.1mph)/ Contacted (31.8mph)
6 of 18
Post-Event Information STRENGTH- Loftus et al (1978)
Participants viewed a car accident near a stop sign. Half of the participants were told it was a "yield" sign and incorrectly recalled "yield". Other participants were accurate and recalled a stop sign.
7 of 18
Post-Event Information STRENGTH- Loftus (1975)
One group of participants were asked to recall information about a barn that wasn't there, and the group with the leading question said there was a barn, but the control group remembered correctly.
8 of 18
Post-Event Information WEAKNESS- Yullie and Cutshall (1986)
Used a real-life case of a Canadian gun-shop robbery where the thief was shot and killed. Witnesses were interviewed by the police and then again by researchers 4-5 months later. The accounts were compared + participants were not misled by leading Qs
9 of 18
Post-Event Information STRENGTH and WEAKNESS- Sutherland and Hayne (2001)
Found the leading questions have no effect on an adults recall of central information but do have an effect on peripheral information
10 of 18
Stress and Arousal STRENGTH-Loftus et al (1987)
Found that recall of an event was greater when participants were approached by an experimenter with a syringe than a pen, as the syringe created a high-arousal situation.
11 of 18
Stress and Arousal STRENGTH- Valentine and Mesout (2009)
Used a 9-person lineup after a worry-inducing situation in the Horror Labyrinth of the London Dungeon. Found that 17% of those whose arousal was above the median amount correctly recalled the culprit, whereas 75% of those below the median did.
12 of 18
Stress and Arousal WEAKNESS- Yullie and Cutshall (1986)
Stress didn't affect memory negatively- the greater level of arousal reported = the more accurate the testimony. However, this may be because those who reported higher levels of arousal were also closer to the crime, so had a better view.
13 of 18
Stress and Arousal WEAKNESS- Stanny and Johnson (2000)
Found that in a high-arousal police training programme involving a shooting, fewer details were recalled- suggesting high arousal doesn't always provide effective recall + may often obscure recall most of the time.
14 of 18
Stress and Arousal WEAKNESS- Maass and Kohnken (1989)
Students were approached by a women holding syringe/pen either saying she would/wouldn't give them an injection- those exposed to the syringe performed worse in their identification.
15 of 18
Gender STRENGTH- Areh (2010)
161 females + 119 males watched surveillance recording of a violent robbery. Females = more reliable EWs, more accurate at description. Though men = more accurate at describing the event + incident.
16 of 18
Gender STRENGTH- Shapiro and Penrod (1986)
Found that women were better at facial recognition than men were.
17 of 18
Gender WEAKNESS- Valentine and Mesout (2009)
19 males made a correct identification of the scary man but only 7 females did.
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Meta-Analysis on weapon focus. They concluded weapon presene demonstreated a negative effect on feature accuracy and identification under controlled conditions as well as real-life situations
Back
Weapon Focus STRENGTH- Fawcett et al (2013)
Card 3
Front
Ppl outside lab. No weapon condition = heard convo about equipment failure and someone entered the room with a grease pen. Weapon = ppl heard arguing and objects crashing then a person holding a bloody letter opener. Weapon/no weapon = 33%/49%.
Back
Card 4
Front
Video of man at hair salon paying for things. In other hand = nothing (control group), scissors, handgun, wallet, or raw chicken. Chicken + gun = poorest recall of man. Wallet + scissors = better recall. Shows unusual object causes less recall
Back
Card 5
Front
Looked at info about real-life events on police records like victims of robberies, assaults + rapes. Interviews compared against police description of primary suspect. Found no evidence of any effect weapon focus had on feature accuracy
Comments
No comments have yet been made