Eyewitness Identification and Change Blindness in Burglary Videos PDF

‭ he‬‭authors‬‭explored‬‭the‬‭relevance‬‭of‬‭research‬‭on‬‭specific‬‭types‬‭of‬‭attention‬ ‭to‬‭eyewitness‬ T ‭identification‬‭and‬‭testimony‬‭under‬‭intentional‬‭and‬‭incidental‬‭memory‬‭conditions.‬‭Participants‬ ‭viewed‬‭a‬‭video‬‭enactment‬‭of‬‭a‬‭burglary‬‭in‬‭which‬‭the‬‭identity‬‭of‬‭the‬‭bu...

‭ he‬‭authors‬‭explored‬‭the‬‭relevance‬‭of‬‭research‬‭on‬‭specific‬‭types‬‭of‬‭attention‬ ‭to‬‭eyewitness‬ T ‭identification‬‭and‬‭testimony‬‭under‬‭intentional‬‭and‬‭incidental‬‭memory‬‭conditions.‬‭Participants‬ ‭viewed‬‭a‬‭video‬‭enactment‬‭of‬‭a‬‭burglary‬‭in‬‭which‬‭the‬‭identity‬‭of‬‭the‬‭burglar‬‭changed‬‭at‬‭the‬ ‭halfway‬‭point‬‭of‬‭the‬‭film.‬‭Half‬‭of‬‭participants‬‭were‬‭briefed‬‭to‬‭remember‬‭the‬‭content,‬‭and‬‭the‬ ‭other‬‭half‬‭were‬‭not.‬‭All‬‭were‬‭tested‬‭for‬‭the‬‭recall‬‭of‬‭the‬‭content,‬‭awareness‬‭of‬‭the‬‭change,‬‭and‬ ‭ability‬‭to‬‭identify‬‭either‬‭or‬‭both‬‭of‬‭the‬‭burglars.‬‭Some‬‭61%‬‭of‬‭participants‬‭did‬‭not‬‭notice‬‭the‬ ‭identity‬‭change.‬‭Rates‬‭of‬‭detection‬‭were‬‭significantly‬‭higher‬‭in‬‭participants‬‭in‬‭the‬‭intentional‬ ‭condition,‬‭who‬‭also‬‭recalled‬‭significantly‬‭more‬‭detail‬‭from‬‭the‬‭film.‬‭Awareness‬‭of‬‭change‬‭was‬ ‭also‬‭significantly‬‭related‬‭to‬‭content‬‭recall‬‭scores‬‭and‬‭accuracy‬‭of‬‭identification‬‭of‬‭both‬‭burglars.‬ ‭The‬‭results‬‭illustrate‬‭the‬‭interrelation‬‭between‬‭the‬‭eyewitness‬‭and‬‭change‬‭blindness‬‭literatures.‬ ‭Participants‬ ‭A‬‭community‬‭sample‬‭of‬‭80‬‭people‬‭(40‬‭men‬‭and‬‭40‬‭women)‬‭aged‬‭15–65‬‭years‬‭volunteered‬‭to‬ ‭participate‬‭in‬‭the‬‭study.‬‭Sixty-eight‬‭were‬‭employed,‬‭4‬‭were‬‭domestic‬‭carers,‬‭and‬‭8‬‭were‬ ‭students.‬‭We‬‭randomly‬‭placed‬‭participants‬‭in‬‭the‬‭intentional‬‭or‬‭incidental‬‭condition‬‭with‬‭the‬ ‭constraint‬‭that‬‭equal‬‭numbers‬‭of‬‭each‬‭gender‬‭should‬‭be‬‭included‬‭in‬‭the‬‭groups.‬ ‭We‬‭filmed‬‭a‬‭2-min‬‭video‬‭clip‬‭specially‬‭for‬‭this‬‭experiment‬‭depicting‬‭an‬‭opportunity‬‭theft‬‭from‬‭a‬ ‭student‬‭house.‬‭Halfway‬‭through‬‭the‬‭film,‬‭the‬‭actor‬‭playing‬‭the‬‭burglar‬‭changed‬‭identity.‬‭Burglar‬ ‭1,‬‭the‬‭actor‬‭playing‬‭the‬‭initial‬‭part,‬‭was‬‭1‬‭m‬‭and‬‭70‬‭cm‬‭tall‬‭and‬‭slightly‬‭built‬‭with‬‭a‬‭round‬‭face.‬ ‭Burglar‬‭2,‬‭the‬‭actor‬‭in‬‭the‬‭second‬‭half‬‭of‬‭the‬‭film,‬‭was‬‭considerably‬‭taller,‬‭1‬‭m‬‭and‬‭88‬‭cm,‬‭and‬ ‭more‬‭heavily‬‭built‬‭with‬‭an‬‭oval‬‭face.‬‭Both‬‭wore‬‭dark‬‭clothing,‬‭although‬‭the‬‭style‬‭and‬‭detail‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭clothing‬‭differed‬‭considerably.‬ ‭We‬‭created‬‭a‬‭content‬‭questionnaire‬‭that‬‭was‬‭prefaced‬‭by‬‭an‬‭open-ended‬‭question‬‭asking‬‭for‬‭a‬ ‭brief‬‭physical‬‭description‬‭of‬‭the‬‭burglar‬‭and‬‭then‬‭asked‬‭a‬‭series‬‭of‬‭Davies‬‭&‬‭Hine‬‭427‬‭16‬ ‭questions‬‭about‬‭the‬‭film.‬‭The‬‭first‬‭question‬‭(“Did‬‭you‬‭notice‬‭anything‬‭unusual‬‭about‬‭the‬‭burglar?‬ ‭If‬‭so,‬‭describe.”)‬‭and‬‭the‬‭last‬‭question‬‭(“Did‬‭you‬‭notice‬‭anything‬‭change‬‭about‬‭the‬‭burglar‬ ‭throughout‬‭the‬‭film?”)‬‭probed‬‭for‬‭evidence‬‭of‬‭awareness‬‭of‬‭changed‬‭identity.‬‭The‬‭remainder‬ ‭were‬‭directed‬‭at‬‭details‬‭from‬‭the‬‭film‬‭(e.g.,‬‭“Did‬‭the‬‭burglar‬‭leave‬‭the‬‭house‬‭through‬‭the‬‭same‬ ‭door‬‭he‬‭entered?”).‬ ‭Participants‬‭were‬‭tested‬‭in‬‭groups‬‭of‬‭up‬‭to‬‭5‬‭people‬‭by‬‭a‬‭single‬‭experimenter‬‭(one‬‭of‬‭the‬ ‭authors).‬‭Each‬‭group‬‭was‬‭homogeneous‬‭as‬‭to‬‭condition.‬‭When‬‭the‬‭group‬‭members‬‭were‬‭in‬‭the‬ ‭intentional‬‭condition,‬‭the‬‭experimenter‬‭told‬‭them,‬‭“You‬‭are‬‭about‬‭to‬‭watch‬‭a‬‭short‬‭video.‬‭Pay‬ ‭careful‬‭attention‬‭to‬‭the‬‭content,‬‭as‬‭there‬‭will‬‭be‬‭a‬‭memory‬‭test‬‭later.”‬‭When‬‭participants‬‭were‬‭in‬ ‭the‬‭incidental‬‭condition,‬‭the‬‭experimenter‬‭told‬‭them,‬‭“This‬‭short‬‭video‬‭illustrates‬‭the‬‭ease‬‭and‬ ‭frequency‬‭of‬‭burglaries‬‭of‬‭student‬‭accommodation‬‭and‬‭the‬‭importance‬‭of‬‭keeping‬‭houses‬ ‭secure.”‬‭Following‬‭observation‬‭of‬‭the‬‭video,‬‭all‬‭members‬‭of‬‭the‬‭group‬‭completed‬‭the‬ ‭questionnaire.‬‭The‬‭experimenter‬‭stressed‬‭that‬‭they‬‭should‬‭work‬‭on‬‭their‬‭own‬‭and‬‭remain‬‭silent‬ ‭until‬‭everyone‬‭had‬‭completed‬‭the‬‭task.‬‭The‬‭experimenter‬‭then‬‭handed‬‭each‬‭of‬‭them‬‭a‬‭board‬ ‭containing‬‭the‬‭lineup‬‭and‬‭requested‬‭them‬‭to‬‭select‬‭“who‬‭from‬‭this‬‭lineup‬‭you‬‭saw‬‭in‬‭the‬‭video.”‬ ‭When‬‭the‬‭entire‬‭group‬‭had‬‭completed‬‭this‬‭task,‬‭the‬‭experimenter‬‭thanked‬‭them‬‭for‬‭their‬ ‭participation‬‭and‬‭asked‬‭them‬‭not‬‭to‬‭tell‬‭other‬‭people‬‭about‬‭the‬‭nature‬‭of‬‭the‬‭study.‬‭As‬‭a‬‭further‬ ‭precaution,‬‭we‬‭delayed‬‭debriefing‬‭about‬‭the‬‭purpose‬‭of‬‭the‬‭research‬‭until‬‭all‬‭participants‬‭had‬ ‭been‬‭tested.‬ ‭The‬‭results‬‭presented‬‭as‬‭a‬‭function‬‭of‬‭condition‬‭(incidental‬‭or‬‭intentional)‬‭and‬‭change‬‭(detected‬ ‭or‬‭not‬‭detected)‬‭are‬‭shown‬‭in‬‭Table‬‭1.‬‭A‬‭total‬‭of‬‭31‬‭of‬‭80‬ ‭participants‬‭reported‬‭the‬‭change‬ (‭ 39%).‬‭Those‬‭noticing‬‭the‬‭change‬‭were‬‭drawn‬‭disproportionately‬‭from‬‭the‬‭intentional‬‭condition,‬ ‭a‬‭highly‬‭significant‬‭effect,‬‭χ2‬‭(1,‬‭N‬‭=‬‭80)‬‭=‬‭23.23,‬‭p‬‭