Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Law enforcement should take into account estimator variables--factors that…

- - - - Our own biases and misconceptions can provide a false report of an event.
    - - Claim: “Information about a past event is not stored in a veridical videotape-like manner that we can access whenever we need to; it is a compilation of information from a variety of sources that combines to allow us to “know” what occurred at some past time” (BCampus).
        Evidence: “Accordingly, information acquired before and after the event influences what we report remembering about the target event (Bartlett, 1932; Rubin, Schrauf, & Greenberg, 2004). In terms of the effect of post-event information, the classic Loftus studies launched extensive research on eyewitness’s suggestibility (e.g., Loftus, 1975, 1979, 2000). Using a variety of stimuli and methodologies, Loftus demonstrated that a sizable minority of participants report that they perceived details during a past event when in fact they were only told about the details after the event. The topic of suggestibility is discussed in more detail below” (BCampus).
        
        Instead of memory being recorded in a videotape-esque manner, it is instead recorded using a hodgepodge of information from before and after an event.
    - - Selective attention can leave out important details regarding a criminal offense because we tend to focus on what matters to us rather than the grand scheme of things, as illustrated in the Powers, Andriks, and Loftus 1979 study.
    - - Claim: “Another potential source of error that can affect information stored in memory concerns repeated reporting. Often, witnesses are asked to recount what they remember several times” (BCampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Often, witnesses are asked to recount what they remember several times. Each time the experience is recounted, a memory trace of the recollection is formed and stored. Memory traces of what was reported may become confused with details that were perceived during the event. In other words, we have trouble remembering what we actually perceived versus what we reported having perceived. This could lead to inaccuracies if the prior reports contain errors ( Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993)” (BCampus, 2013).
        
        If a witness is asked to recount an occurrence several times, s/he is more likely to find it difficult to distinguish what we reported perceiving versus what we actually perceived.
- - - - Claim: “The passage of time affects memory for events and eyewitness identification. A more complete discussion of this factor is presented in the section on eyewitness identification” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: NA
        
        Time has a direct association with memory retention of events.
        
        Claim: “Loftus and her colleagues showed that the way in which questions are worded could also influence eyewitness recall” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Participants were asked to estimate the speed of two cars when they “contacted,” “hit,” or “smashed” each other. The estimated speeds varied significantly as a function of the wording used. Participants estimated the cars to be traveling at a slower speed when the word “contacted” was used than when the word “smashed” was used in the question. In addition, participants were much more likely to recall seeing a broken headlight when they were asked whether they saw “the” broken headlight than when they were asked whether they saw “a” broken headlight. Thus, subtle variations in wording or subtle suggestions implanted in a question or statement about an event can result in substantial variation in the eyewitness’s recall of the event” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        The wording of questions also can play a role in how witnesses recall an instance.
        
        Claim: “Suggestions implanted within questions can influence the recall of eyewitnesses” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “In one series of studies, Loftus and Palmer (1974) showed participants a film of a car crash. Half of the participants were asked about the speed of the car when it “turned right,” and half were asked to estimate the speed when the car “ran the stop sign.” Later, participants were asked whether they saw a stop sign; 35 percent of the group who were asked about the speed of the car when it turned right indicated that they saw a stop sign, whereas 53 percent of the group who had been asked about the speed of the car when it ran the stop sign reported seeing a stop sign. When a suggestion about the presence of a barn was included in the questioning, 17 percent of participants reported seeing a barn when, in fact, there was no barn in the film” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        Suggestive questioning can cause people to believe implanted suggestions had occurred when, in fact, it did not.
        
        Claim: “There is an interaction between passage of time and suggestion. The more time that passes between a witnessed event and a misleading question or other attempt to implant a suggestion, the more effective the suggestion will be in distorting the accuracy of the eyewitness’s report (Hoffman, Loftus, Greenmun, & Dashiell, 1992)” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Three explanations for the suggestibility effect have been offered (e.g., Zaragoza, Belli, & Payment, 2007):
        “Misinformation Acceptance: This is the process in which participants guess or respond in a way they think the questioner wants them to respond. Because the questioner presented the misinformation or otherwise expressed a desire to hear the misinformation, it seems reasonable to participants that the suggestion is the desired response” (Bcampus, 2013).
        “Source Misattributions: Participants recall both the experienced detail and the suggested detail but cannot remember how each detail was learned, and sometimes inaccurately attribute the suggested detail to the experience” (Bcampus, 2013).
        “Memory Impairment: The misinformation impairs participants’ ability to remember the experienced details (that is, it either renders the experienced detail inaccessible or destroys/alters it)” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        As more time passes, one becomes more vulnerable to incorporating misleading information into their original report.
- - - - Claim: “Remain neutral and objective” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Interviewers must not direct the dialogue or reveal their biases. There are a number of ways interviewers can inadvertently introduce their beliefs about the event to the witness: by selectively reinforcing responses that are consistent with their hypothesis, verbally and non-verbally; by ignoring or otherwise discounting statements that are inconsistent with their biases; by asking leading questions; and by taking control of the interview” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        By not introducing your own bias and prejudices, you can achieve the most accurate witness report as an interviewer.
      - Claim: “Begin the interview by developing rapport with the witness” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “This serves two important goals. First, the witness is being asked to work hard to provide a detailed description of an unpleasant experience to a stranger (the police officer) who is assumed to be an expert on crime. This request will be more successful if the police officer can reduce some of the stress by developing rapport. Second, rapport building is also a first step in transferring control of the interview to the witness” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        By having more of an intimate dynamic with a witness, this allows the witness to feel more comfortable and willing to provide the investigator with more detailed information about an event, and this also allows the interviewee to have more control of the interview.
    - - Claim: “Now let’s look at a specific interviewing technique. The original Cognitive Interview (CI) was developed in response to request made to two psychologists to help in training and guiding police interviews (Fisher, 2010; Geiselman, Fisher, MacKinnon, & Holland, 1985)...It has all the characteristics of a good interview, including beginning with rapport building and transferring control to the interview to the witness” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “In several studies that compared the amount and accuracy of details obtained from the ECI to those obtained from standard police interviews, the results were startling. Some researchers reported a 35 percent increase in correct information reported with the ECI compared to a standard police interview. Based on meta-analyses, Kohnken, Milne, Memon, & Bull (1999) and Memon, Meissner, and Fraser (2010) concluded that the majority of the research has found that the cognitive interview elicits more correct information compared to a control interview; however, there is also a small increase in the amount of incorrect information reported” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        The Enhanced Cognitive Interview, which includes all of the general principles for interviewing witnesses, is a significantly better alternative than traditional interviews, resulting in a 35 percent increase in correct information reported. However, there is a small increase in false information reported.
    - - Leading questions can diminish the credibility of a subsequent witness testimony.
- - - - In comparison to mundane events, stressful or arousing events are more easily retained.
    - - Stress can help us remember the most important details of an unusual event, but in the process of evaluating the event, we neglect the peripheral details of said event.
    - - The levels of stress one experiences during a inherently stressful event are highly suggestive because what may be very arousing for someone can be moderately upsetting for others (e.g., swimming lessons).
    - - When a culprit is brandishing a firearm, witnesses tend to gravitate their attention to the weapon which results in witnesses' memory being impaired.
- - - - The more time one views a perpetrator, the more likely one is to correctly identify the perpetrator, but individuals tend to overestimate or underestimate the time in which an event occurred
    - - Environmental factors (i.e., lighting, fog, precipitation) can influence the accuracy of eyewitness identification negatively.
    - - Memory and accurate identifications of a culprit diminishes as time elapses.
    - - Claim: “There is no evidence that members of one race are better or worse at eyewitness identification than members of another race. However, there is evidence to suggest that people are better at recognizing the faces of members of their own race than they are at recognizing the faces of members of other races” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Meissner and Brigham (2001) conducted a meta-analysis of 39 studies and found that within-race identifications were significantly more likely to be accurate than cross-race identifications (also known as own-race bias). Various reasons have been proposed for why people are better at identifying others from their own race more accurately. Some researchers have suggested that we classify the facial features of someone from our own race in more detail, and less superficially, than we do the facial features of someone from another race (Fiske & Taylor, 1991; Malpass & Kravitz, 1969). This may be a result of a greater familiarity with those from our own race. Meissner and Brigham (2001) found that as our contact with members of different racial groups increases, our ability to recognize faces from those racial groups improves” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        Backed by numerous studies, individuals are less accurate at identifying members of another race.
- - - - Claim: “It appears that jurors are so swayed by eyewitness evidence that even testimony indicating that an eyewitness did not view the perpetrator under adequate conditions does not change the chances of conviction significantly” (BCampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “In a classic study, Loftus (1979) presented three groups of mock jurors with evidence from a criminal case… Thus, one of the challenges for the defence in any trial is to attempt to educate the jury about the factors that may impact the accuracy of an eyewitness’s testimony. Aside from cross-examining eyewitnesses in an attempt to bring to light possible weaknesses in their testimony, the defence can educate the jury about some of these factors in two other ways: expert testimony about eyewitness testimony and judicial instructions” (BCampus, 2013).
        
        Even when it is presented to a jury that the eyewitness evidence in question has flaws, it does not have any notable change in the rate at which defendants are falsely convicted.
      - Claim: “Psychologists may be called as experts to testify about eyewitness testimony. In general, this type of testimony focuses on the factors that may impact the accuracy of eyewitness testimony in an attempt to educate the jury about the possibility of false or mistaken testimony. The psychologist will explain the research on eyewitness testimony to the judge or to the jury but will not comment on the accuracy of the particular witness” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “Cutler and his colleagues (1990b) conducted a series of studies to examine the impact of expert testimony…Thus, it seems that the presentation of expert testimony at trial can serve to educate jurors about the relevant factors for evaluating eyewitness testimony” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        The presentation of expert testimony regarding the limitations of eyewitness identifications caused participants to place less emphasis on eyewitness testimony and eyewitness confidence.
    - - Claim: The second rule proposed by Wells and colleagues (1998) is that “eyewitnesses should be told explicitly that the person in question might not be in the lineup or photo spread and therefore should not feel that they must make an identification. They should also be told that the person administering the lineup does not know which person is the suspect in the case (p. 629)” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “As discussed earlier in this chapter, eyewitnesses find it difficult not to select someone from a lineup or photo spread; instead of indicating that the perpetrator is not present, they will most often select the person from the lineup or photo spread who most closely resembles the perpetrator. Instructing the eyewitnesses that the suspect might not be in the lineup or photo spread reduces the chances that they will make a false identification” (BCampus, 2013).
        
        When you instruct the witness that the suspect may or may not be present in the lineup, it prevents the witness from feeling pressured to select someone who may closely resemble a description of a suspect and lessens the chances that they will make a false identification.
      - Claim: “The third rule that Wells and colleagues (1998) recommended was that “the suspect should not stand out of the lineup or photo spread as being different from the distractors based on the eyewitness’ previous description of the culprit or based on other factors that would draw extra attention to the suspect” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “The critical issue here is to ensure that an innocent suspect in the lineup or photo spread does not stand out from the foils in any significant way that would cause this person to be selected more than would be expected on the basis of chance. One way to test whether this rule has been met with any particular lineup is through the use of a mock witness procedure. Mock witnesses (people who have never seen the perpetrator) are given the eyewitness’s description of the perpetrator and then shown the lineup and asked to select the person they believe is the perpetrator. If the mock witnesses are able to figure out who the suspect is, this suggests a problem with the lineup. In theory, if there are six members of a lineup or photo spread, each member should be selected by one-sixth of the mock witnesses” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        Wells and his colleagues advise police officials to not make the suspect ostracized from other foils because this can cause the eyewitness to select an innocent individual, and this error can be identified with a mock witness procedure.
      - Claim: “Wells and his colleagues (1998) recommended that the first rule be that “the person who conducts the lineup or photo spread should not be aware of which member of the lineup or photo spread is the suspect” (p. 627)” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “The lead detective or investigator on a case is most often the person who assembles and conducts the lineup or photo spread. Thus, as in the experimenter situation, it is possible that the lead investigator will convey verbal and non-verbal cues to the eyewitness regarding which member of the lineup is the suspect. For these reasons, it has been recommended that the person who conducts the lineup or photo spread should be blind as to which member is the suspect” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        Because lead detectives or investigators may give off verbal or non-verbal cues that insinuate that an individual is a culprit, Wells recommends that the lineup conductor should not know who the suspect is.
      - Claim: “The fourth rule recommended by Wells and colleagues (1998) is that “a clear statement should be taken from the eyewitness at the time of the identification and prior to any feedback as to his or her confidence that the identified person is the actual culprit (p. 635)” (Bcampus, 2013).
        Evidence: “As discussed earlier in this chapter, an eyewitness’s confidence tends to increase over time, with successive identifications, and with post-identification information provided to the eyewitness. In addition, we know that jurors can be strongly persuaded by a witness’s level of confidence. If eyewitnesses are given feedback that they identified the person the police suspected, their confidence in the identification will be raised. In addition, asking eyewitnesses to recall the level of confidence they had at the time of the identification is not reliable, especially when they have been given feedback about the identification. Thus, the only way to accurately assess eyewitnesses’ confidence in the identification is to ask for their confidence level at the time of the identification. This way, any significant discrepancy between the level of confidence indicated by the eyewitness at the time of the identification and during testimony at trial can be noted by the jury and considered accordingly” (Bcampus, 2013).
        
        With successive identifications, the confidence of the witness increases, so a clear statement about the eyewitness' confidence prior to any feedback regarding whether or not an individual is a culprit can counter this during testimony.