IB Psychology HL - CLOA - Extent of Reliability af a Cognitive Process

criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness testimony

The Innocence Project provides assistance to wrongly convicted people to help prove their innocence

over 75% of the 220 people they helped were convicted due to mistaken eyewitness identification

Eakin et al. (2003): even when warned about the presence of misleading info, participants were still vulnerable to it

Main studies:

Loftus et al. (1987)

Deffenbacher et al. (2004)

Counter-studies:

Riniolo et al. (2003)

Yuille and Cutshall (1983)

investigate how repression may influence memories

- (thus leading to unreliable answers from eyewitnesses)

Participants overhear a discussion in the room next door

There were 2 conditions (i.e. groups)

- no weapon condition (man with greasy hands emerges, holding a pen)

- weapon condition (man with bloody paper knife emerges)

Participants were asked to identify the man from a selection of 50 people

participants from no-weapon condition more accurate in recollection

participants’ attention was drawn to presence of weapons

so less attention paid to man’s facial features

weapon may also have influenced participants’ anxiety levels, affecting the reliability of their memory

therefore eyewitness testimony is unreliable

conducted meta-analyses of studies investigating the role of emotion on eyewitness testimony

found that anxiety and stress reduces the reliable recall of crime details

including information about the behaviour of the main characters

but some studies suggest that anxiety and stress seem to improve eyewitness accuracy

suggested that increases of anxiety up to a certain level increase accuracy but further increases may produce the opposite effect

found that eyewitness memory of the sinking of the Titanic was accurate

mean estimates were highest in smashed„ condition and lowest in contacted

results indicate that memory can be manipulated by using specifi†c words (hence, is unreliable)

critical word in the question consistently aff‡‡ected participant‚ answers

the use o‡f diff‡‡erent words may have influenced participants‚ mental representation/memory reconstruction of‡ the accident (activating diff schemas using the critical word)

interviewed 13 witnesses to an armed robbery in Canada 5 months after the crime

the interview questions utilized a similar technique to Loftus and Palmer (1974) – the use of ‘leading questions’ to mislead the participants

their recollections of the crime were compared with the initial detailed reports they had given to the police

despite the leading questions, recollections very closely matched original reports

memory is an active reconstructive process

every time a memory is recalled, stored info is altered

one is forced to simplify by relying on prior knowledge

schemas are facilitators in comprehension and memorisation

helps to enable more effortless and efficient processing

but schematic processing can lead to error and distortion

should be noted that in all studies, the gist of the situation was correctly recalled

but memory of specific details may have been influenced upon recall

thus eyewitness testimony is fallible and should not be overly relied upon

memory is an active reconstructive process

Bransford and Johnson (1972) established schemas as great facilitators in the comprehension and memorization of information

hence, reconstruction =! distortion

however, that doesn’t mean schematic processing won’t cause error/distortion

much empirical evidence for and against reliability

research addressing specific factors or processes can no doubt help us predict the circumstances in which eyewitness testimony will be reliable or unreliable

to conclude, more research on the factors are necessary to establish a suitable conclusion

cognitive process: memory

factors affecting memory reliability:

weapon focus: Loftus et al (1987)

high emotional arousal: Deffenbacher et al (2004) vs Riniolo et al. (2003)

leading questions: Loftus and Palmer (1974) vs Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

NOTE THAT LOFTUS’ AND DEFFENBACHER’S STUDIES ARE LABORATORY EXPERIMENTS WHILE YUILLE’S AND RINIOLO’S ARE CASE STUDIES – analyse the difference between real-life and experimental situations

discuss the validity of the arguments

give judgment by emphasizing some arguments over others

give judgment on the relative importance of the factors on the behaviour: how important is ____ and why?

present all opinions with evidence

conclusion: evaluate the extent of reliability