Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Thesis: Despite eyewitness testimony having many flaws, it is a highly…

- - - - Claim #2: "At the encoding stage, we don’t simply passively encode stimuli in the environment; we actively interpret our experiences. Expectations that are formed long before an event occurs may predispose us to remember the event in certain ways" (BCampus, 2013).
        Evidence #2: "In Connolly and Price (2013), a former bank teller described her recollection of a particularly violent robbery that she witnessed. Immediately after the robbery when she described what had happened, she reported with absolute certainty that the robbers were dressed in black. When she saw the videotape of the robbery, she discovered that they were dressed in plaid shirts" (BCampus, 2013).
        
        Claim #3: "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, 2013).
        Evidence #3: "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, 2013)
        
        Claim #4: "Memory also deteriorates while we store it" (Innocence Project, 2020).
        Evidence #4: "Research dating back to the 19th century shows that we rapidly forget what we have seen and heard, and that memory doesn’t improve over time, as this “forgetting curve” illustrates: https://innocenceproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/IP-graph-1-1024x768.jpg " (Innocence, Project, 2020)
  - - - Claim #2: "Deffenbacher et al. reported that high levels of stress impaired both lineup identification and descriptions of target persons (if measured by answers to specific questions asked during an interview but not free recall)" (Pickel, 2008).
        Evidence #2: "With respect to lineups, the authors speculated that high stress might degrade the witness's memory representation of the perpetrator so that it becomes difficult to match that representation to him or her in a target-present array but easy to see similarities between the memory representation and one of the foils in a target-absent array. Deffenbacher et al. also suggested that the impaired memory representation of the target might be less apparent when free recall is used instead of interrogation because in the former case the witness can decide what to include, what to exclude, and in what order to report the information" (Pickel, 2008).
        
        Claim #3: "Generally, we recall the gist and central elements of emotional events more accurately than we do the gist and central features of non-emotional events" (BCampus, 2013).
        Evidence #3: "There are at least four possible reasons for this: (1) events are emotional because they relate to things or include details that we care about, and this leads to better memory for those details; (2) we tend to rehearse arousing events more than neutral events, and rehearsal enhances memory; (3) arousing events may activate amygdala-based processing that leads to particularly vivid memories (not necessarily accurate, but memories that are experienced as vivid); and (4) there is a narrowing of attention to the central details of events that are arousing, leading to good memory for the central details at the expense of memory for peripheral details" (BCampus, 2013).
  - - - Claim #2: "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 #2: "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).
        
        Claim #3: "This section will examine own-race bias and its effect on eyewitness identification" (Connelly, 2015).
        Evidence #3: "The White clerks identified fifty-three percent of the White customers correctly, forty percent of the African-American customers correctly, and thirty-four percent of the Hispanic customers correctly. African-American clerks identified sixty-four percent of the African-American customers correctly, fifty-five percent of the White customers correctly, and forty-five of the Hispanic customers correctly. Hispanic clerks identified fifty-four percent of the Hispanic customers correctly, thirty-six percent of the White customers correctly, and twenty-five percent of the African-American customers correctly" (Connelly, 2015).