Making a case

HideShow resource information
Bruce - Study 1
Examine reliability of internal/external facial features. 30 staff&students from stirling uni. 10 target pics, 40 celeb composites-complete, only internal, only external. Whole&external were matched best.
1 of 32
Bruce - Study 2
Usefulness of internal features. 48 students at Stirling uni. 40 internal or 40 external composites. Set-up of police line-up. External better matched.
2 of 32
Bruce - Study 3
Why internal creation is harder. 54 participants. 32 composites-1/2 familiar, 1/2 not. Whole, external, internal. Match composite with target face. Complete&external best. No difference between quality of composite-internal hard to recreate
3 of 32
Loftus et al. - Aim
Support for weapons focus theory
4 of 32
Loftus et al. - Sample
36 students, uni of washington. 18-31years. 1/2 via advert - paid, 1/2 psych students - extra credit
5 of 32
Loftus at al. - Procedure
Shown 18 pictures of an event at a taco restaurant. 1. 2nd person in line pulled out gun. 2. Pulled out a cheque. Then filled in questionnaire. Focussed on the 2nd person. Confidence of recognition of person from 12 random pics
6 of 32
Loftus et al. - Results
No significance from questionnaire. Recognition - 38.9% correct in control. 11.1% correct in gun. Looked at gun longer than cheque.
7 of 32
Geiselman and Fisher - Aim
Test cognitive interview in the field
8 of 32
GeiselFish - Sample
16 detectives from robbery division of dade county, Florida. 7 trained in CI.
9 of 32
GeiselFish - Procedure
Interviewing real witnesses about real case. Analysed by blind team in Uni of CA
10 of 32
GeiselFish - Findings
63% more info gained by trained. CI does work, better when trained.
11 of 32
Mann - Aim
Police ability to detect lies
12 of 32
Mann - Sample
Kent police - 75 males, 24 females - 78 detectives
13 of 32
Mann - Procedure
Watched real videos of interviews with 14 suspects. Judging truthfulness. Saw head and torso. Filled in a questionnaire - lie detection experience. Confidence in answer of T or F. Listed cues of lies/truths.
14 of 32
Mann - Results
66.2% average accuracy. More experience = more correct. Non-detectives more accurate. No control group. More correct - relied on story not physical cues.
15 of 32
Inbau - Influence
Interrogation - accusatory, no doubt of guilt. Disliked Miranda Rights.
16 of 32
Inbau - Stages
Direct confrontation, Chance to shift blame, Not allowed to deny guilt, Ignore excuses/alibi, Keep eye contact&first names, Crying- assume guilt, Offer alternative sentence, Confession in front of witness, Signed confession.
17 of 32
Gudjohnsson - Aim
Document a case of false confession in a youth
18 of 32
Gudjohnsson - Procedure
Case study of FC (17yr old boy). Accused of ****&murder of 2 old women. Arrested due to alibi inconsistency & unusual spending patterns. No forensic evidence. Accused of lying&being sexually impotent. Leading&accusatory questions.
19 of 32
Gudjohnsson - procedure cont.
14hrs of questioning, no breaks. Confessed, then withdrew confession, then confessed again after more questioning. Assessed by psychiatrists- no mental illness, low IQ, 10 on susceptibility scale. Released 1 year later.
20 of 32
Gudjohnsson - Conclusions
Coerced compliant false confession - to escape the situation, forced
21 of 32
Canter Top down - Aim
Test reliability of organised/disorganised typologies.
22 of 32
Canter top down - Procedure
Content analysis. 100 cases of US serial killers, using 3rd cime.
23 of 32
Canter top down- Results
2xdisorganised found. 70% body was hidden, 75% included sexual acts. Further analysis = no difference between the 2 types
24 of 32
Canter top down - conclusions
All crimes have organised elements. Better to look at personality variables
25 of 32
Canter and Heritage, Bottom up - Aim
Identify behaviour patterns from offence similarities. Marauders&commuters - spatial consistency, interpersonal consistency.
26 of 32
Canter and Heritage, Bottom up - Procedure
Content analysis. 66 sexual offences by 27 offenders. Data from various police forces. Used canter's smallest space computer analysis - common factors closer to centre
27 of 32
Canter and Heritage, Bottom up - Results
5 most central variables - Vaginal intercourse, no reaction to victim, impersonal lang, surprise attack, disturbed clothing of victim - 5 factor theory. Factors in all sex offences - different patterns=different offenders.
28 of 32
Canter, profiling - Aim
Successfully apply bottom-up profiling in real life.
29 of 32
Canter, profiling - Procedure
1988-invited by police to help with Duffy case-23 women *****, 3 dead @London railway stations over 11yrs. Examined crime&built up profile. Found 2 themes from bottom-up: attacker related to victim-prior abuse, low amount of force used. Marauder.
30 of 32
Duffy's Profile
Lat 20s, few friends, marriage problems, keeps souveniers, no children, small, live in Kilburn/Crinklewood, railway knowledge, dominate women, sex/violent fantasies, semi-skilled
31 of 32
Canter, profiling - Results
Duffy was 1505/2000 suspects. On record for abusing wife. 13/17 factors on profile matched Canter's. Had 33 house keys from victims. Duffy eventually confessed
32 of 32

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Usefulness of internal features. 48 students at Stirling uni. 40 internal or 40 external composites. Set-up of police line-up. External better matched.

Back

Bruce - Study 2

Card 3

Front

Why internal creation is harder. 54 participants. 32 composites-1/2 familiar, 1/2 not. Whole, external, internal. Match composite with target face. Complete&external best. No difference between quality of composite-internal hard to recreate

Back

Preview of the back of card 3

Card 4

Front

Support for weapons focus theory

Back

Preview of the back of card 4

Card 5

Front

36 students, uni of washington. 18-31years. 1/2 via advert - paid, 1/2 psych students - extra credit

Back

Preview of the back of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Criminological and Forensic Psychology resources »