Forensic Psychology Textbook Notes PDF

NON-TEXTBOOK LECTURE SLIDES. Lecture 1. Lecture 2. Lecture 3. CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY. 1.1: A Brief History of Forensic Psychology. 1.1.1: Early Research on Testimony and Suggestibility. - Began in US and Europe. - Jam...

NON-TEXTBOOK LECTURE SLIDES. Lecture 1. Lecture 2. Lecture 3. CHAPTER 1: AN INTRODUCTION TO FORENSIC PSYCHOLOGY. 1.1: A Brief History of Forensic Psychology. 1.1.1: Early Research on Testimony and Suggestibility. - Began in US and Europe. - James Cattell conducted an experiment looking at the psychology of eyewitness testimony and found answers and recollection were inaccurate. Commented [KV1]: James Cattell asked university students to recall things they had witnessed in their - Other psychologists started studying testimony and suggestibility. everyday lives. o Alfred Binet found children’s testimonies were very susceptible to suggestive questioning techniques; he found when kids were asked to report everything, Commented [KV2]: Binet presented children with a the answers were accurate, but when asked misleading questions, the series of objects for a short period of time (e.g., a button glued to poster board). After viewing an object, some of answers were inaccurate. the children were told to write down everything they saw o William Stern developed the “reality experiment” which is now used by while others were asked questions. Some of these questions were direct (e.g., “How was the button eyewitness researchers to study recall and recognition; he found that attached to the board?”), others were mildly leading (e.g., “Wasn’t the button attached by a thread?”), and still emotional arousal can neg- impact one’s accuracy. others were highly misleading (e.g., “What was the color of the thread that attached the button to the board?”). 1.1.2: Court Cases in Europe. Commented [KV3]: Reality experiment: participants are exposed to staged events and then asked to provide info - In Europe, psychologists started appearing as experts. about the event. o Albert von Schrench-Notzing was the 1st expert witness to provide testimony Commented [KV4]: Participants in a law class were about the effect of pretrial publicity on testimonial memory, causing exposed to a scenario that involved two students arguing in a classroom. The scenario ended with one of the retroactive memory falsification. students drawing a revolver; the observers were then asked questions about the event. Consistent with the 1.1.3: Advocates for Forensic Psychology in North America. findings of Cattell and Binet, Stern found that the testimony of participants was often incorrect. In addition, - Many people didn’t like Hugo Munsterberg’s contributions to his cases, however, he he found that recall was the worst for portions of the event that were particularly exciting (i.e., when the then published his book On the Witness Stand to combat the criticisms, arguing revolver was drawn). that psychology does tie into the legal system in many ways, such as: Commented [KV5]: Retroactive memory falsification: when one confuses actual memories with events described by the media.  o How psychology can help with issues involving eyewitness testimony, crime detection, false confessions, suggestibility, hypnotism and crime prevention. - John Henry was Munsterberg’s biggest hater, criticizing him for the lack of relevant research publications and the lack of applied research to forensic psychology. - BUT NA was catching up with Europe: o 1909: psychologists opened the 1st clinic for juveniles. o 1916: psychologists developed labs to conduct pretrial assessments. o 1917: psychological testing was used for law enforcement purposes. o Mid-1900s: theory development for crimes was rapid. 1.1.4: Landmark Court Cases in the U.S. - Early to mid-1900s: more US psychologists became expert witnesses, with the first case being State v. Driver (1921). Commented [KV6]: State v. Driver (1921) case involved the attempted rape of a young girl and the court accepted expert evidence from a psychologist in the area of juvenile 1.1.5: Progress in Canada. delinquency. BUT the state rejected the psychologist's testimony that the girl was a 'moron' and thus, couldn't be - Canadian psychologists have the most contributions in the area of corrections, believed. BUT Canadian courts have been slower than US courts to allow psychologists Commented [KV7]: Corrections: constructing better risk- (Canadian courts prefer psychiatrists), probably bc of educational standards. assessment tools and developing effective treatment approaches. 1.1.6: A Legitimate Field of Psychology. - Forensic psychology is now a legit field bc: o Inc+ # of textbooks teach students about the field, o Academic journals are now published, o Professional associations have been developed to represent forensic psychologists, o New training opportunities, o APA formally recognizes forensic psychology as a specialty discipline. 1.2: Modern-Day Roles and Activities. - There’s debate about the definition of forensic psychology: o Narrow definition: forensic psychologists = those engaged in clinical practice within the legal system. § Focuses on certain aspects while ignoring others (focusing on clinical aspects while ignoring experimental research). o Broad definition: 1) research that looks at human behaviour directly related to the legal process and 2) professional practice of psychology within a legal system and the areas they intersect.  § Focuses on the application and research of psychology. 1.2.1: The Roles of a Forensic Psychologist. The Forensic Psychologist as a Clinician. - Clinical forensic psychologists: psychologists concerned with the assessment and treatment of MH issues as it relates to the law/legal system. o Different from forensic psychiatrists. Commented [KV8]: Forensic psychiatrists: medical doctors. - Tasks: o Assessing an offender to determine if they’ll pose a risk after prison release; o Conducting divorce and child custody mediation; o Providing expert testimony of psychological nature; o Carrying out personnel selection; o Running critical incident stress debriefings with officers; o Facilitating treatment programs for offenders. The Forensic Psychologist as a Researcher. - Experimental forensic psychologists: psychologists concerned with the study of human behaviour as it relates to the law/legal system. - Tasks: o Examining effectiveness of risk-assessment strategies; o Determining what factors influence jury decisions; o Developing and testing better ways to conduct eyewitness lineups; o Evaluating offender and victim treatment programs; o Studying the effect of stress management interventions on officers. The Forensic Psychologist as a Legal Scholar. - Forensic psychologists as legal scholars: engage in scholarly analyses of MH law and psychologically oriented legal movements. 1.2.2: Activities Undertaken by Forensic Psychologists. 3 ways psychology and the law relate: 1. Psychology and the law: using psychology to examine the operation of the legal system. - Q. include: “are eyewitnesses accurate?” “do certain interrogation techniques cause people to falsely confess?” “are judges fair in the way they hand down sentences?” “is it possible to accurately predict whether an offender will re- offend?” 2. Psychology in the law: using psychological knowledge in the legal system as the system operates.  - Can include: psychologist providing expert testimony concerning an issue of relevance or using their knowledge of human communication to assist police in a Commented [KV9]: For example, the psychologist might hostage negotiation. testify (based on their understanding of eyewitness research) how certain factors can influence the accuracy 3. Psychology of the law: using psychology to examine the law itself. of identifications from police lineups. - Q. include: “does the law reduce the amount of crime in our society?” “what impact should court rulings have on the field of forensic psychology?” 1.3: Psychological Experts in Court. - Forensic psychologists can now testify for many topics including: custody issues, malingering and deception, eyewitness identification accuracy, effects of crime on victims, assessment of dangerousness. 1.3.1: The Function of the Expert Witness. - Expert witness: provides court with info based on specialized knowledge. o Provides court with personal opinion on the basis that it falls within the limits of the expert’s area of expertise. 1.3.2: The Challenges of Providing Expert Testimony. - Providing expert testimony is hard bc: o There’s so much for the expert to know, o There are many differences between psychology and the law. The fields differ along 7 dimensions: Dimension Psychology believes: Law believes: Epistemology Psychologists assume Law is defined it’s possible to uncover subjectively and who hidden objective can give the most truths. convincing story of what happened. Nature of law Psychology = Law = perspective (i.e., descriptive (i.e., goal = tells people how they describe how and why should behave and people behave the way provides punishment). they do). Knowledge Based on empirical, Based on idiographic nomothetic data analysis of cases and Commented [KV10]: Nomothetic: group-based. collection using rational application of research. logic to establish facts and connections to other cases. Methodology Nomothetic and Operates on case-by- experimental, with case basis, focusing on  emphasis on making compelling controlling narratives that cover confounding variables details. and replicating results. Criterion Cautious about Guilt is determined accepting something using various criteria as true (p <.05). established for a case (beyond a reasonable doubt). Principles Exploratory approach Conservative approach that encourages where an explanation consideration for is based on it’s multiple explanations coherence with facts. of findings. Latitude of courtroom Severely limited Fewer restrictions on behaviour (testimony is restricted lawyers (can present by rules of evidence). wide range of evidence, call on different witnesses, present their case as they want). 1.3.3: Criteria for Accepting Expert Testimony. - Forensic psychologists must meet certain criteria to provide expert testimony, known as the general acceptance test. Commented [KV11]: General acceptance test: standard for accepting expert testimony; states that the expert - For scientific evidence to be admitted, the US Supreme Court states that it must: testimony will be admissible in court if the basis of the 1. Be provided by a qualified expert, testimony is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. 2. Be relevant, 3. Be reliable. - To help judges figure out if evidence is reliable, the Supreme Court laid out the Daubert criteria which includes 4 criteria: 1. The research has been peer reviewed, 2. The research is testable, Commented [KV12]: Testable: falsifiable through experimentation. 3. The research has a recognized rate of error, 4. The research adheres to professional standards. - To admit an expert testimony in Canada, it must meet the Mohan criteria which includes 4 criteria: o Testimony is offered by a qualified expert, o Evidence must be relevant (makes something more/less likely), o Testimony is necessary for assisting the jury of the fact, Commented [KV13]: Basically, the testimony must be about something that goes beyond the common o Evidence must not violate any other rule of exclusion. understanding of the court.  CHAPTER 2: POLICE PSYCHOLOGY. 2.1: The Police Selection Procedure. - Police selection procedures: set of procedures used by police to screen out bad candidates or select good ones. - 1917: Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test was used to screen officers and recommended minimum IQ score of 80 and later, personality tests were used to predict police performance. 2.1.2: Developing Police Selection Instruments. 2 stages involved with the development of police selection instruments: 1. Job analysis stage: knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) of a good officer must be identified and defined. 2. Construction and validation stage: instrument must be developed to measure one’s KSAs. 2.2: Police Selection Instruments and their Validity. 2.2.1: The Selection Interview. - Selection interview: interview used by the police to determine the extent to which an applicant possess the KSAs deemed important for the job. o Research (little) shows that interviews can sometimes predict job performance, but not always. o BUT useful info is more likely to come out of interviews when they consist of a standard, predetermined list of q. 2.2.2: Psychological Tests. Cognitive Ability Tests. - Cognitive ability tests: measures verbal, mathematical, memory, and reasoning abilities (RPAT). Commented [KV14]: RCMP Police Aptitude Test (RPAT): MC q. designed to evaluate one's potential aptitude for o Better at predicting performance during training than on-the-job. police work, specifically, 7 core skills (composition, comprehension, memory, judgement, observation, logic, Personality Tests. computation). - Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI): measures people with psychopathological problems. - Invalid Personality Inventory (IPI): identify applicants who are suitable for police work by measuring their personality attributes and behaviour patterns. o Developed specifically for law enforcement (MMPI was not). 2.2.3: Assessment Centres. - The main selection instrument in an assessment centre is the situational test. Commented [KV15]: Assessment centre: facility where applicants are observed in different situations by multiple observers. 2.3: Police Discretion. Commented [KV16]: Situational test: simulations of real- - Police discretion: the freedom that an officer has for deciding what should be done world policing tasks. in any given situation. o For discretion to be advantageous, officers must exercise discretion in a nondiscriminatory manner. Individuals with Mental Illnesses. - Policies instruct officers to apprehend individual when they pose a danger to themselves or others or is causing a serious disturbance with discretion. - When faced with a mentally ill individual, officers have 3 options: o Transporting person to psychiatric institution, o Arrest person and take them to jail, Commented [KV17]: Can lead the mentally ill individual to become criminalized and thus, those who would have o Resolve matter informally. typically been treated within the mental health system is - Those with a mental illness are more likely to be charged and arrested vs those now dealt with by the criminal justice system. without. Use-of-Force Situations. - In NA, officers are granted the right to use force to protect the public and themselves BUT they have a lot of discretion when deciding to do so. o Any other reason = inappropriate use. - In Canada, authority to use force is laid out in Criminal Code. 2.3.3: Controlling Police Discretion. - Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be a guideline for officers but specific conditions have been developed. o In Ontario, a section of the Police Services Act states that officers commit misconduct if they treat someone with discrimination. Departmental Policies. - Studies have found that use-of-force policies de- both the frequency of police shootings and # of officers injured/killed. Use-of-Force Models. - Use-of-force models indirectly inc+ the likelihood that officers will assess and evaluate potential use-of-force situations. o RCMP’s Incident Management Intervention Model (IMIM) was developed to assist RCMP officers with their decision-making. 2.4: Police Stress. 2.4.1: Sources of Police Stress. - Common sources of police stress: o Occupational stressors: stressors relating to the job itself. § Most stressful. o Organizational stressors: stressors relating to organizational issues. - 10 highest stressors: o Feeling that different rules apply to different people, o Feeling like you must prove yourself to the organization, o Fatigue, o Finding time to stay in good physical health, o Inconsistent leadership style, o Dealing with court systems, o Bureaucratic red tape, o Not even time to spend with loved ones, o Shift work, o Perceived pressured to volunteer free time. 2.4.2: Consequences of Police Stress. Commented [KV18]: Constant exposure to stressful - Physical health problems. events can result in chronic activation of the body’s stress response systems to a point where physiological breakdown occurs.  o Physiological: digestive disorders, death due to cancer, cardiovascular disease, retired officers die younger. o Physical: high BP, cholesterol, stomach ulcers, respiratory problems, weight gain, diabetes. - Psychological and personal problems. o Depression, PTSD, drug and alcohol abuse*, martial problems, suicide, burnout. - Job performance problems (direct result of physical and psychological problems). o De- in work efficiency and productivity, inc+ absenteeism and tardiness, early retirement, more sick days. 2.5: Preventing and Managing Police Stress. 2.5.1: Resiliency Training. - Resiliency training: training delivered to officers to improve their ability to effectively adapt to stress and adversity. o Key focus = facilitating mental preparedness. 2.5.2: Psychological Debriefings. - Psychological debriefing: psychologically oriented intervention delivered to officers after exposure to an event that resulted in psychological distress and impairment of normal functioning. o Key focus = social support and venting of emotions via discussions while facilitators educate participants about stress response and coping techniques. CHAPTER 3: THE PSYCHOLOGY OF POLICE INVESTIGATIONS. 3.1: Police Interrogations. - Police interrogation: process where police interviews suspect for the purpose of gathering evidence and obtaining a confession. Box 3.1: The Mr. Big Technique. - Mr. Big technique: undercover cops pretend to be a part of a criminal organization and attempt to lure suspect into the gang.  - After a few minor crimes tgt, the suspect is “interviewed for a higher-level job, however, he needs to needs to confess to the crime that the police are suspecting him of as a form of “insurance.” o 75% success rate, 95% conviction rate. - Not entrapment bc the police =/ force the suspect to do anything new, but rather Commented [KV19]: Entrapment: person is persuaded to commit a crime that they otherwise would not commit. gives them a chance to admit to their previous crime. 3.1.1: The Reid Model. Reid model consists of 3 stages: Stage 1: Gather evidence and interview witnesses and victims. Stage 2: Conduct non-accusatorial interview of suspect to assess any evidence of deception. Commented [KV20]: To determine whether the suspect is lying when they claim to be innocent. Stage 3: Conduct accusatorial 9-step interrogation of suspect, with an objective being to secure a confession: 1. Suspect’s immediately confronted with guilt; if the police =/ have any evidence atp, they can hide it from the suspect and imply that it does exist. 2. Psychological themes are developed to allow suspect to rationalize/excuse the crime. - Victim = known criminal who “had it coming.” 3. Interrogator interrupts statements of denial to keep upperhand. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. - Model = based on idea that “people make choices that will max their well-being given the constraints.” o Assumes suspect’s [fear of confessing] > [anxiety caused by remaining deceptive about involvement] BUT psychological tactics are used to reverse this. o Giving suspect a rationalization excuse (“it was an accident”) de- their perceived consequences and appeals to one’s morality (“take responsibility, for your family”). 2 interrogation categories: 1. Minimization techniques (“soft sell”): 2. Maximization techniques (“hard sell”): lull suspect into false sense of security. scare tactics used to intimidate suspect. Victim “had it coming” bc they were a drug Pointing out inconsistencies, referring to dealer and suspect “did everyone a favor” non-existent eyewitnesses, “I don’t believe by killing him. you.” 3.1.2: Potential Problems with the Reid Model. 2 problems with the Reid Model: 1. Deception detection: detecting when - Actual interrogation (stage 3) relies someone is deceiving you. on officer’s ability to accurately determine suspect (stage 2). - Officers =/ have better detection skills. - Some =/ understand their rights. 2. Investigator bias: bias resulting from - In a fake interrogation study, when officers enter an interrogation, findings showed that investigative believing that the suspect is already guilty. bias led to coercive interrogations that cause suspects to appear guiltier, even tho suspect = innocent. Commented [KV21]: In a mock interrogation study, interrogators were led to believe a suspect = guilty or 3. Inc+ likelihood of false confessions. innocent, while the suspect’s actual guilt or innocence varied. Observers then rated the interrogators and suspects based on the recoded interactions. 3.1.3: An Alternative to the Reid Model. Notable findings: - PEACE model (Planning and Preparation, Engage and Explain, Account, - Interrogators w/ guilty expectations asked more q that indicated their belief. Closure, Evaluation): goal = get truthful and accurate info via a non-accusatory - Interrogators w/ guilty expectations used a higher approach, focused on building trust and rapport rather than employing frequency of interrogation techniques. - Interrogators w/ guilty expectations judged more coercive/manipulative tactics. suspects to be guilty. o Used in England and Wales. - Interrogators indicated that they exerted more pressure on suspects to confess when the suspect = innocent. o Study found 50% of all suspects confessed to crimes before and after PEACE - Suspects had an accurate perception of interrogator model’s intro. behaviour (innocent suspects believed their interrogators were exerting more pressure). - Neutral observes viewed interrogators w/ guilty 3.2: False Confessions. expectations as more coercive. False confessions =/ same as retracted or disputed confessions. False confessions: Confession that’s either intentionally fabricated or =/ based on facts. Retracted confessions: Confession that confessor later declares to be false. Disputed confessions: Confession that’s later disputed at trial. 3.2.1: The Frequency of False Confessions. - Hard to tell if confession = false. o Just bc a confession = coerced =/ it’s false, just as a conviction based on confession evidence =/ it’s true (self-report confessions = vary a lot).  - One approach for estimating false confession rate = look @ causes of wrongful convictions. The approach found false confessions to be very problematic. Commented [KV22]: Using this approach, the files of ppl who’ve been exonerated (first declared guilty and then declared innocent) were examined to see if a false 3.2.2: Different Types of False Confessions. confession was to blame for their wrongful conviction. 3 types of false confessions: 1. Voluntary false confessions: someone - Arises from: voluntarily confesses to a crime they =/ o Desire for notoriety, commit. o =/ distinguish real from fake, o Need to make up pathological feelings of guilty by receiving punishment, o Desire to protect someone else. - Highly publicized cases. 2. Coerced-compliant false confessions: - Most common. someone confesses to a crime, even tho - Be given so person can: they know they didn’t do it, bc of coercive o Escape interrogation, tactics. o Gain a benefit, o Avoid punishment. 3. Coerced-internalized false - Several vulnerability factors like: confessions: innocent confesses, o History of substance abuse, believing that they did the crime. o Inability to detect discrepancies b/t what’s observed and suggested, o Factors associated w/ mental state (anxiety, confusion, guilt feeling). - Billy Wayne Cope’s false confession of how he molested and strangled his daughter. 3.2.3: Studying False Confessions in the Lab. - A study investigated how people react to false accusations of wrongdoing. Commented [KV23]: Participants were accused of accidentally deleting data during a computer task. o Results showed that people were more likely to confess to a crime they didn't commit when they were vulnerable and presented with false evidence.  o Also examined extent to which people internalized their confessions and fabricated details to support them. Many admitted guilt and even began to believe their own lies. Commented [KV24]: Especially those who were vulnerable and presented with false evidence. o Suggests people can be easily influenced by accusations, especially when they lack confidence in their own innocence. 3.2.4: The Consequences of Falsely Confessing. - Consequences of falsely confessing: o Jurors are likely to convict based on confession evidence even tho they know it was a fake confession. Commented [KV25]: Bc it’s still viewed as evidence. § 3 reasons why jurors are unlikely to view confessions by innocent people as false: =/ believe ppl = willing to make statements that counter self- interest; =/ distinguish b/t true and false confessions; False confessions = similar true confessions. § Confession evidence can taint other evidence. o Waste $, time, resources. 3.3: Criminal Profiling. 3.3.1: What is a Criminal Profile? - Criminal profiling (aka behavioural/criminal investigative analysts): investigate technique for identifying big characteristics of someone based on a crime analysis. - Initially used to help narrow list but now it’s used for: o Helping set traps to flush out offender, o Determine whether a note = taken seriously, o Give advice on interrogation tactics, o Tell prosecutors how to break down defendants in cross-exam. - Most common characteristics: age, sex, race, education, hobbies, family, residence, criminal history, employment status, psychosexual development, post- offence behaviour. 3.3.2: The Origins of Criminal Profiling. - ViCLAS (Violent Crime Linkage Analysis System): developed by RCMP to collect and analyze info on serious crimes in Canada. - Linkage blindness: police’s inability to link geographically dispersed serial crimes committed by the same offender bc of lack of info sharing among police agencies. 3.3.3: How is a Criminal Profile Constructed? 2 types of profiling methods: 1. Deductive profiling method: profiling 2. Inductive profiling method: profiling background characteristics of unknown the background characteristics of an offender based on evidence left at the unknown offender based on what we know offender’s crime scene. about other solved cases. - Relies on logic. - Relies on how likely offender will be - Noticing offender had short nails on like past offenders. R hand and long nails on L hand and - Child murderers à probability of thus, offender = guitar player. 0.96 that offender will know victim. - Con: underlying logic can be faulty - Con: unclear how method would be (offender = repairs old tires, not used to profile if crimes = unique. guitar player). - Organized-disorganized model. Organized-disorganized model: profiling model that assumes crime scenes and backgrounds of serial offenders can be organized or disorganized. Organized behaviours Disorganized behaviours Crime Scene Well-planned and controlled Impulsive and chaotic crime. Behaviours crime. Background Reflects methodical person. Reflects disturbed person. Characteristics - Idea = when encountering disorganized crime scenes, investigators should profile background characteristics of a disorganized offender (same w/ organized). - 4 criticisms: 1. Lack of strong theoretical base underlying the approach. 2. Lack of empirical support for certain profiling assumptions.  3. Many profiles = ambiguous, which can cause probs when officers are asked to interpret profile. 4. Professionals profilers =/ better at constructing accurate profiles. 3.4: Geographic Profiling. - Geographic profiling: uses crime scene locations to predict where offender lives. - Geographic profiling system: computer systems that use math models of offender’s spatial behaviour to find out where they live. CHAPTER 5: EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY. 5.1: Eyewitness Testimony: The Role of Memory. - Encoding stage (see stranger’s face and notice bushy brows) à short-term Commented [KV26]: Encoding stage: when you perceive and pay attention to details in environment. memory à long-term memory; can be retrieved when needed. Commented [KV27]: Short-term memory: memory can - Memory =/ 100% accurate (can change everytime we retrieve). hold limited amount of info. Commented [KV28]: Long-term memory: unlimited Recall vs recognition memory: storage that holds a lot of info unconsciously. Recall memory: reporting details of a Recognition memory: determining Commented [KV29]: Retrieval: getting into from LTM and previously witnessed event/person. whether previously seen item/person = bringing it back to consciousness. same as rn. 5.2: How Do We Study Eyewitness Issues? - 2 ways of studying eyewitness issues: o Look @ data from actual crimes or,  o Lab simulations (most common). 5.2.1: The Laboratory Simulation. - Laboratory simulation: unknowing participant views crime, asked to describe what happened and perpetrator involved. Commented [KV30]: Participant =/ know they’ll be tested. - 2 categories of IV and 3 DV found in eyewitness research: 2 IV (both can be manipulated in lab studies): Estimator variables: factors that’re System variables: factors that can be present at the time of the crime and =/ be manipulated to inc+/de- eyewitness changed. accuracy. - Witness’ age, lighting, presence of - Type of procedure used to interview weapon, witness’ intoxication lvls. witness, lineup procedure used to present suspects to witness. 3 DV in eyewitness studies: Recall of crime happens in Recall of perpetrator Recognition of perpetrator 2 ways: happens so we can know: is typically done via lineups Commented [KV33]: Lineups: set of people presented to - Open-ended recall - Amount of info and happens so we can witness who must identify perpetrator if they’re present. (aka free narrative) reported, know: Commented [KV31]: Open-ended recall (aka free or, - Type of info - Accuracy of narrative): witnesses = asked to write or orally state everything they remember about the event without the - Direct question reported, decision, officer/experimenter asking questions. recall (asked colour - Accuracy of info - Types of errors Commented [KV32]: Direct question recall: witnesses = of gataway car or reported. made. asked a series of questions about the crime/perpetrator. length of perpetrator’s hair). 5.3: Recall Memory. - Interview goal = extract profile from witness of what happened. 5.3.1: Interviewing Eyewitness. - A study looked at how officers were interviewing eyewitnesses and found that officers would introduce themselves, ask witness to report via open-ended recall, ask witness series of direct questions and end with asking if they remembered any new info. o Found approach limits ability to collect complete and accurate info in 4 ways: § Officers interrupted witnesses during open-ended recall à limits amount of info in witness’s conscious memory.  § Officers questioned witnesses with very short, specific questions à witness gives short answers and officers may not ask relevant questions that would give useful info. Perpetrator has tats but if officer =/ ask about tats, the witness may not report it and officer will miss a descriptor. § Officers questioned witnesses in a predetermined/random order that =/ consistent w/ info that witnesses were providing à de- recall. Officer asks question about perpetrator’s voice while witness’s talking about clothing. § Officers asked leading/suggestive questions à hard to collect accurate info. - Contamination of co-witnesses can cause memory conformity. Commented [KV34]: Memory conformity: when what one witness reports influences what another witness reports. 5.3.2: The Misinformation Effect. - Elizabeth Loftus found that witness’ recalls can be altered by phrasing of a question. o “How fast were the cars going when they hit?” study found highest speed for smashed and lowest speed for bumped or contacted. After a week, they asked if they saw broken glass. Smashed had broken glass despite no glass shown. o Students watched a video of a classroom disruption. Some were asked about 4 demonstrators, others about 12. Later, they were asked how many demonstrators they saw. Those initially asked about 12 reported seeing more than those asked about 4. - Misinformation effect (aka post-event information effect): a witness who’s presented with inaccurate info after an event will incorporate that misinformation into a recall task. 3 reasons for the misinformation effect: 1. Misinformation acceptance hypothesis: witnesses may guess the answer that they think the experimenter wants. 2. Source misattribution hypothesis: witnesses may remember both accurate and inaccurate info but confuse where they came from. 3. Memory impairment hypothesis: original memory may be replaced or altered by new, inaccurate info. 5.3.3: Procedures That Help Police Interview Eyewitnesses. - Procedures that help police interview witnesses:  o Hypnosis. Commented [KV35]: Hypnosis: change in state of awareness and inc+ relaxation. § Hypnotically refreshed memory. Commented [KV36]: Hypnotically refreshed memory: § 2 techniques are used in hypnosis: age regression and the television hypnotized witness produces more detail than a technique. nonhypnotized witness/ § Findings show that people will give more details, but they’re just as Commented [KV37]: Age regression: witness goes bak in time and re-experiences the original event. likely to be inaccurate and thus, info gained =/ be used as evidence. Commented [KV38]: The television technique: witness o The cognitive interview. imagines that they’re watching an imaginary TV screen § Expanded to enhanced cognitive interview. with events being played as they were witnessed. Commented [KV39]: The cognitive interview: interview § Both cognitive interviews > standard interview, producing more procedure based on principles of memory storage and accurate info without inc+ inaccurate info. retrieval. o Recall of the perpetrator (describe appearance). Based on 4 retrieval techniques: § Accuracy of descriptors reported (in order): age, complexion, type of 1. Reinstating the context, 2. Reporting everything, top, height, type of bottom, hair length, etc. 3. Reversing order, 4. Changing perspectives. 5.4: Recognition Memory. Commented [KV40]: Enhanced cognitive interview: interview procedure that includes various principles of - Recognition memory can be tested in 3 ways: social dynamics in addition to the memory retrieval principles used in the original cognitive interview. o Live lineups or photo arrays, o Video surveillance records, Additional components include: - Rapport building, o Video identification. Supportive interviewer behaviour, - Transfer of control, 5.4.1: Lineup Identification. Focused retrieval, - Witness-compatible questioning. Lineup identification de- the uncertainty of whether the suspect is the perpetrator. Commented [KV41]: Recognition memory: determining Suspect: person police suspects Perpetrator: guilty person who committed whether a previously seen item/person = same as the one committed the crime. the crime. currently being viewed. Commented [KV42]: Lineup identification: witness views group of possible suspects and determines which is the perpetrator. Police can use 2 strategies to decide on the physical appearance: Similarity-to-suspect: matches lineup Match-to-description: distractors are Commented [KV43]: Distractors: line members that are members to the suspect’s appearance. matched only on the items that the witness innocent to the crime. - Suspect had brown hair, blue eyes, provided in their description. moustache, then all line members - Witness said that criminal had would have these characteristics. brown hair, blue eyes, round face, - Con: many features that can be no facial hair, then all line members matched. would have those characteristics. - To obtain a fair lineup: Commented [KV44]: Fair lineup: suspect =/ stand out from the other members. o General unmentioned characteristics needs to be included.  o If a feature is mentioned in the witness statement but =/ match the subject’s appearance, then distractors should match the suspect’s appearance on that feature. § Witness said perpetrator had brown hair but suspect’s hair is blonde, then the distractors should have blonde hair. 2 lineups are used when we want to see if witnesses will make an accurate or not identification decision: Target-present lineup: has a pic of the Target-absent lineup: substitute perpetrator. perpetrator’s pic with another photo. 3 types of identification occurs: 3 types of identification occurs: 1. Correct identification: witness 1. Correct rejection: witness says identifies guilty as suspect. perpetrator =/ present. 2. Foil identification: witness 2. Foil identification: witness identifies foil. identifies foil. o Person identified =/ prosecuted o “” BUT witness seems to have 3. False identification: witness “faulty memory.” identifies innocent person. 3. False rejection: witness says o May result in innocent suspect perpetrator =/ present. being prosecuted and real o May result in guilty suspect criminal = free. going free. Correct decision = 1 (correct Correct decisions = 1 (correct rejection). identification). - Photos (photo array) are used more often than live people bc of 5 reasons: Commented [KV45]: Photo array: picture version of a live lineup. 1. Less time to make. 2. Portable. 3. Suspect =/ have the right to counsel (this right is present with live lineups). 4. Police =/ need to worry about suspect’s behaviour drawing attention. 5. Witness = less anxious. - Videos can also be used. Lineups can be presented in different ways: 1. Simultaneous lineup: presents all members @ 1 time which encourages witness to make a relative judgement. Commented [KV46]: Relative judgement: witnesses compares lineup members to one another and the person who looks most like to perpetrator = identified.  2. Sequential lineup: presents members serially, forcing witness to make a decision before seeing the next member and inc+ the chance of an absolute judgement. - Found if perpetrator =/ in lineup, witnesses = more likely to correctly identify that they =/ present if they were shown a sequential lineup. o Correct identification rates = same. - Faces on L side were looked at first and foil on L side were more likely to be inaccurately identified. - Alternative identification processes: o Showup, Commented [KV47]: Showup: shows one person to the witness—the suspect—and asked if they’re the suspect o Walk-by. or not. Commented [KV48]: Walk-by: occurs in a naturalistic 5.4.2: Lineup Bias. environment. The police take the witness to a public location where the suspect is likely to be. Once the - Biased lineups: lineup that “suggests” whom the police suspect and thus, who the suspect is in view, the witness is asked whether they see witness should identify. the perpetrator. 3 biases that inc+ false pos+: 1. Foil bias: suspect is the only member who matches the description of the perpetrator. - Suspect has a break and moustache while the other members are clean-shaven. 2. Clothing bias: suspect is the only member who matches the perpetrator’s clothes. - Perpetrator was wearing a blue hat but the foils aren’t. 3. Instruction bias: police fail to mention that the perpetrator may not be present and rather, imply that the perpetrator = present. 5.4.3: Voice Identification. - A study examined key voice variables and found: Commented [KV49]: A study had University students listen to a taped voice of a mock kidnapper that varied in o Identification accuracy = higher with longer voice samples. length—either 30 seconds or 8 minutes. o Whispering de- identification accuracy. o Distinctiveness interacted with whispering, influencing identification accuracy. - Another study found that voice recognition inc+ when it was accompanied by laughter or only laughter was heard. 5.4.5: Are Confident Witnesses Accurate?  - Small pos+ correlation b/t accuracy and confidence. - Many moderator variables can influence the relationship: o Timing of confidence assessment, o Post-identification feedback, o Repeated expressions of a decision. 5.4.6: Estimate Variable: Age. - Research suggests older adults (60+) have limitations: o Older adults = less likely to correctly identify perpetrator from a target- present lineup and more likely to make an incorrect decision from a target- absent lineup. o Older adults will underperform compared to young adults. 5.4.7: Estimate Variable: Race. - Cross-race effect (other-race effect or own-race bias): phenomenon of witnesses remembering own-race faces with greater accuracy than faces from other races. o Own-race faces produced higher correct identifications and lower false pos+ than other-race faces. - Being intoxicated had a larger neg- effect when recognizing same-race faces compared to other-race faces (Asians and Europeans). - Other explanations for cross-race effect: o Attitudes (people with fewer prejudices = more inclined to distinguish among members of other races) à no support. o Physiognomic homogeneity (some races have less variability in their faces; i.e., they look alike) à no support. o Interracial contact (the more contact you have with other races, the better you will be at identifying them) à some support. 5.4.8: Estimate Variable: Weapon Focus. 2 reasons for the weapon focus effect: Commented [KV50]: Weapon focus: phenomenon where witness pays more attention to perpetrator’s weapon 1. Arousal; the cue-utilization hypothesis. rather than the perpetrator. 2. Usualness; weapons = unusual and thus, attracts attention. Commented [KV51]: Cue-utilization hypothesis: suggests when emotional arousal inc+, attentional capacity de-. 5.4: Expert Testimony on Eyewitness Issues. - The role of eyewitness experts = debated:  o Some believe expert testimony = unnecessary bc it covers common sense info. o Experts = overconfident even tho studies = limited. 5.5: Public Policy Issues and Guidelines. - 4 recommendations for lineup identifications: 1. The person who conducts the lineup/photo array shouldn’t know which person is the suspect. 2. Witnesses should be told explicitly that the criminal may not be present in the lineup and thus, witnesses shouldn’t feel as if they must make an identification. 3. Suspect shouldn’t stand out as being different from foils based on witness’s previous description. 4. A clear statement should be taken from the witnesses at the time of identification.