eyewitness memory
DESCRIPTION
Eyewitness Memory. Dr. Anne Cybenko University of Dayton Research Institute. “The Innocents” Taryn Simon. Why do People Care?. There have been 289 exonerations in the US www.innocenceproject.org Over 70% of those have been due at least in part to a mistaken identification - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Eyewitness MemoryDr. Anne Cybenko
University of Dayton Research Institute
“The Innocents” Taryn Simon
There have been 289 exonerations in the US◦ www.innocenceproject.org
Over 70% of those have been due at least in part to a mistaken identification
It’s a unique situation that tests human memory and decision making
Why do People Care?
Ronald Cotton
CORRECT IDENTIFICATION
FALSEIDENTIFICATION
Picking Cotton
This guy commits a crime and someone witnesses it.
The Basics: What Happens when there’s a witness to a crime?
Police get a description from the witness
The Basics: What Happens when there’s a witness to a crime?
He was about 6’ tall, brown hair, brown eyes, no facial hair…
Police find a suspect who may be: Guilty or Innocent
The Basics: What Happens when there’s a witness to a crime?
Witness is shown a lineup that is eitherPerpetrator Present
Perpetrator Absent
The Basics: What Happens when there’s a witness to a crime?
Perpetrator Present
Perpetrator Absent
Picks the suspect CORRECT IDENTIFICATIONBad guy goes to trial
FALSE IDENTIFICATIONInnocent guy goes to trial
Picks a foil FOIL PICKBad guy may go free
FOIL PICKInnocent guy may go free
Rejects the lineup
FALSE REJECTIONBad guy may go free
CORRECT REJECTIONInnocent guy may go free
The Basics: Possible Outcomes of a Lineup
Type of Lineup
Witn
ess’s
Dec
ision
Mostly undergraduate participants Participants watch a mock crime (video or
live) Participants usually give a description Filler task Presented with a lineup Make an Identification
How is it studied?
Witness interview techniques Child interview techniques Showups Foil selection Lineup Presentation Lineup Instructions Multi-modality lineups Double-blind lineups
What Exactly do People Study
Simultaneous or Sequential Lineups Accuracy and Response Time Verbal Overshadowing Effect Interference Theory
Topics for today
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups
I am going to show you six photographs. Please look at all six photographs before making any comment.
The person who committed the crime may or may not be among those shown in the photographs you are about to see. If you recognize any of the persons in the photographs as the suspect, go back and pick out the person you recognize.
If you recognize any of the persons please do not ask me whether your choice was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, as I am prohibited by law from telling you.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
1 2 3
4 5 6
I am going to show you some photographs.
The person who committed the crime may or may not be among those shown in the photographs you are about to see. If you recognize any of the persons in the photographs as the suspect, please tell me and we will stop the lineup.
If you recognize any of the persons please do not ask me whether your choice was ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, as I am prohibited by law from telling you.
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY SHERIFF PHOTO LINE-UP
Decision PP Simultaneo
us
PP Sequential
PA Simultaneo
us
PA Sequential
Suspect ID .58 .50 .43 .17Foil ID .12 .02 .15 .18Reject .30 .48 .42 .65
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups
Lindsay & Wells (1985)
Results depend on:◦ Similarity of the innocent suspect to the
perpetrator ◦ Innocent suspect position in the sequential lineup
(Clark & Davey, 2001)
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups
Decision
PPSimultaneo
us
PPSequenti
al#2
PPSequenti
al#4
PASimultaneo
us
PASequential
#2
PASequential
#4
Suspect .417 .292 .667 .313 .292 .458
Foil .438 .500 .167 .354 .208 .334
Reject .146 .308 .167 .333 .500 .208
Innocent suspect is medium similarity to perpetrator
Decision
PPSimultaneo
us
PPSequenti
al#2
PPSequenti
al#4
PASimultaneo
us
PASequential
#2
PASequential
#4
Suspect .250 .292 .625 .417 .417 .250
Foil .542 .583 .208 .312 .208 .542
Reject .208 .125 .167 .271 .375 .208
Innocent suspect is high similarity to perpetrator
The Mecklenburg Report (2006)
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups
Simultaneous (N = 319)
Sequential(N = 229)
Suspect .599 .45Foil .028 .092Reject .376 .472
Absolute vs relative decision making
Sequential vs. Simultaneous Lineups
WITNESS model (Clark, 2003) to generate predictions
Perpetrator is represented as a vector of features, P.
Memory of the perpetrator (M):◦ Feature j of P is stored correctly in M with probability a.◦ Feature j of P is stored incorrectly in M with probability 1 – a.
Innocent suspect and foils:◦ Feature j matches the perpetrator with probability s◦ Feature j mismatches the perpetrator with probability 1 – s.
Match each lineup member to memory (M).◦ m(L1,M), m(L2,M), … , m(L6,M) (for six person lineup)
Apply decision rule to make a decision.
Model-Based Predictions
◦ Best Above Criterion (BAC): A witness identifies the best matching lineup member if the match to memory is above criterion. (Absolute judgment)
◦ Relative Difference Model (RD): Best matching lineup member is identified if the difference between the best match and the next-best match is above a difference criterion. (Relative judgment)
WITNESS model
Dunning & Perretta (2002) Four eyewitness studies using a
combination of videotaped and live crimes. Measured response time and accuracy
Accuracy and Response Time
Witnesses making their ID’s faster than 10-12 seconds were nearly 90% accurate
Witnesses that took longer than 12 seconds were 50% accurate
Automatic vs Deliberative processes
Accuracy and Response Time
Study N Accurate Inaccurate t1 201 38.4 63.9 -3.07**2 96 11.1 15.7 -2.46*3 41 13.2 23.5 -2.78*4 50 13.3 36.4 -4.26**
* p<.05 ** p<.01Study 1 participants had think aloud task
Optimal response time changes with:◦ An increase in retention interval (Brewer et al., 2006)
◦ An increase in the size of the lineup (Brewer et al., 2006)
◦ Confidence of the witness (Weber et al., 2004)
◦ Age (Weber et al., 2004)
Accuracy and Response Time
Verbalizing the appearance of previously seen visual stimuli impaired subsequent recognition performance
Verbal Overshadowing Effect
Experiment 1◦ Does describing a perpetrator affect ones ability
to identify him?
Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990)
Description NoneCorrect ID .38 .64Foil ID .37 .22Rejection .25 .14
Experiment 3◦ Do these results apply to all stimuli that are
difficult to describe?
Description
Visualization
None
Correct ID .33 .64 .73Foil ID .67 .36 .27
Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990)
Experiment 5◦ Does this pattern of results change if there’s a
limited amount of time to ID the suspect?
Description NoneUnlimited Recognition .50 .805 Second Recognition .73 .76
Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990)
Meta-analysis on 29 published and unpublished verbal overshadowing studies
Zr = -.12, a small but significant negative effect of verbal overshadowing
Meissner & Brigham (2001)
Long delay between description and ID (Finger & Pezdek, 1999)
More than 1 trial (Fallshore & Schooler, 1995; Houser et al., 1997; Melcher & Schooler, 1995)
Following re-presentation of visual stimulus(Schooler et al., 1996)
When a cognitive interview is used(Finger & Pezdek, 1999; Meissner et al., 2001)
Studies that don’t find verbal overshadowing
Availability assumption◦ Visual representation remains available in
memory despite the temporary verbal impairment Modality mismatch hypothesis
◦ Competing representations in memory from different modalities
Possible Mechanisms
40
Proactive interference: When information that is presented BEFORE a target event interferes with the memory for that target event
Retroactive interference: When information that is presented AFTER a target event interferes with the memory for that target event
Retroactive interference is stronger than proactive interference (Schemeidler, 1939; McGeoch and Underwood,1943; Melton and Von Lacrum, 1941)
Types of Interference
41
Changed-trace hypothesis: Outside information interferes with target information because it changes the memory trace of the target information.
Multiple-trace hypothesis: Outside information interferes with target information because it creates a separate memory trace that is recalled instead of the target trace.
Hypotheses of Interference
42
Argued that the Loftus et al. results could have been due to 2 other issues:◦ Original stimulus never encoded◦ Remembered both, trusted/responded with the
one from the narrative
McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985)
43
Participants were presented with slides depicting a maintenance man enter an office, fix a chair, then steal $20.
4 Critical items within the slides ◦ tool (hammer, wrench, or screwdriver)◦ soda can (Coke, 7-up, or Sunkist)◦ coffee jar (Folgers, Maxwell House, or Nescafe)◦ magazine (Glamour, Vogue, or Mademoiselle)
Participants presented with written account of what they just saw. This written account contained misinformation for 2 of the items.
McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985)
44
Two types of tests: ◦ Traditional Recognition Test: Target vs. Interfering
Saw Coke, read about 7-up, Test: Coke or 7-up◦ Modified Recognition Test: Target vs. Novel
Saw Coke, read about 7-up, Test: Coke or Sunkist Traditional Recognition test – Picked 7-up Modified Recognition test – Picked Coke Participants could not have picked Coke in
the modified test if reading about 7-up changed their memory trace
McCloskey & Zaragoza (1985)
45
Replicated McCloskey and Zaragoza (1985) with 2 changes
Gave either incorrect or neutral information in the recap of the slides (“7-up” or “soda” )
Test was in the form of open ended questions: “The key to the desk was next to a ____ can?”
participants performed equally well on the recall tests
If the misinformation really changed the memory trace, participants should have performed considerably worse on the recall test for the misinformation items.
Zaragoza, McCloskey, and Jamis (1987)
46
Replicated McCloskey and Zaragoza’s (1985) experiment Testing was in the form of Yes/No statements: “Below the magazine
rack there was a copy of Vogue magazine.” Tversky and Tuchin asked about the critical item (the one from the
slides), the misinformation item (the one from the summary of the slides), and the novel item (the one that did not appear at all)
Belli asked about the critical item, and the novel item. Misleading postevent information reduced the "Yes" responses to
the question about the original item. T & T Subjects were equally good at rejecting the novel item T & T Similar number of subjects responded yes to original item as
responded yes to the misleading item. Belli - misled subjects were better than control subjects at rejecting
the novel item Belli concluded memory trace was changed, T & T did not.
Tversky & Tuchin (1989)Belli (1989)
47
McCloskey and Zaragoza’s results could have been a product of their stimuli having too many unique discernable features such that even if the trace was altered, some of those features would remain unchanged.
Used stimuli that were very similar to each other.
Conducted 10 Experiments
Chandler (1989 & 1991)
48
Nature photographs Cut in thirds
Chandler - Stimuli
A A’ A”
49
Variables between experiments: ◦ Proactive or Retroactive interference◦ Presentation time◦ Retention interval◦ Number of stimuli
Chandler’s Methodology
50
Chandler’s Methodology (Retroactive Interference)
Target List Interfering List
Retention
Test
51
Found Retroactive interference when:◦ Presentation time was long(7.5 and 10 seconds)◦ Delay was short (3 – 15 minutes)
Did not find Retroactive Interference when◦ Presentation time was short (4 seconds)◦ Lots of stimuli (140 not 48)◦ Delay was long (48 hours)
Did not find significant evidence of proactive interference under any conditions
Chandler’s Results
52
Participants tested in groups of 1-8 All stimuli presented on overhead Responses were made on paper
Experiments 1-6 Method
53
Experiment 1 was conducted to gather evidence for/against item specific retroactive and proactive interference in a modified recognition test.
Replicate Chandler’s results
Experiments 1 & 2- Purpose
54
Participants: 60 Undergraduates Materials: 48 Color Photographs of Nature
Scenes. Each scene was divided into thirds (A, A’, A”)
Experiments 1&2 - Method
55
Experiments 1&2 - Stimuli
A A”A’
56
Experiments 1&2- Stimuli
A A”A’
57
Experiments 1 & 2 - Method Experiment 1
Math Phase Study Phase Interfering Phase Math Phase Test Phase
Interfering Phase Study Phase Math Phase Math Phase Test Phase
Experiment 2
58
Experimental Accuracy: M = 68.7, SD = 11.1
Control Accuracy: M = 75.8, SD = 8.8 t (31) = 4.682, p < .001, r = -.644 Significant evidence of retroactive
interference
Experiment 1 - Results
59
Experimental Accuracy: M = 71.88, SD = 9.65
Control Accuracy: M=72.77, SD = 10.43 t (27) = .486, p = .631, r = -.093 No evidence of proactive interference
Experiment 2 - Results
60
See if the results of Chandler (1989, 1991) and Experiments 1&2 are found when the stimuli are words instead of images
Find support for/against the changed-trace and multiple-trace hypotheses
Experiments 3&4 - Purpose
61
Participants: 60 Undergraduates Materials: 144 words from Van Overschelde,
Rawson, and Dunlosky’s (2004) updated category norms. The 18 most common words from 8 categories(animals, colors, body parts, fruits, sports, clothing, countries, and car models) were used.
Experiments 3&4 - Method
62
Experiments 3 & 4 - MethodExperiment 3
Math Phase Study Phase Interfering Phase Math Phase Test Phase
Interfering Phase Study Phase Math Phase Math Phase Test Phase
Experiment 4
63
Experimental Accuracy: M = 80.51, SD = 11.30
Control Accuracy: M = 85.62, SD = 10.86 t (28) = 2.139, p = .013, r = -.375 Evidence of retroactive interference was
present
Experiment 3 - Results
64
Experimental Accuracy: M = 76.14, SD = 12.49
Control Accuracy: M = 82.33, SD = 9.94 t (30) = 2.66, p = .013, r =- .437. Evidence of proactive interference was
present
64
Experiment 4 - Results
65
Find evidence for/against the Threshold Theory of Interference
Experiments 5&6 - Purpose
66
Participants: 39 Undergraduates Materials: Same as Experiments 1 & 2
(nature pictures)
Experiments 5&6 - Method
67
Experiments 5 & 6 - MethodExperiment 5
Math Phase Study Phase Interfering Phase (4 or 1) Math Phase Test Phase
Interfering Phase Study Phase Math Phase Math Phase Test Phase
Experiment 6
68
Experimental (4) Accuracy: M = 67.78, SD = 12.33
Experimental (1) Accuracy: M = 72.25, SD = 12.66
Control Accuracy: M = 76.79, SD = 14.35 F(2,34) = 8.534, p = .001 Tukey test revealed that all groups are
significantly different from each other.
Experiment 5 - Results
69
Experimental (4) Accuracy: M = 68.79, SD = 12.79
Experimental (1) Accuracy: M = 72.95, SD = 10.70
Control Accuracy: M = 75.05, SD = 10.80 F(2,34) = 8.534, p = .001 Tukey and paired samples t-tests:
◦ Control = Experimental (1)◦ Control > Experimental (4)◦ Experimental (1) > Experimental (4)
Experiment 6 - Results
70
Contrasts
Predictions:◦ Control = Experimental (1)◦ Control > Experimental (4)◦ Experimental (1) > Experimental (4)
t (20) = 3.16415, p = .047, r =- .578
Experiment 6 - Results
71
Retroactive interference is found when the stimuli are pictures and words and when there is a single or multiple presentation of interfering information.
Proactive interference is only found when there are multiple presentations of interfering information.
Summary of Results
72
An interfering stimulus only interferes with a target stimulus IF the difference in strength between the memory trace of the interfering stimulus and the memory trace of the target stimulus crosses a threshold.
Threshold Theory of Interference
73
Support for a modified version of multiple trace hypothesis
Threshold Theory of Interference is supported◦ Evidence of proactive interference found with
multiple presentations of interfering stimuli◦ Evidence of retroactive interference ◦ No evidence of retroactive interference after 48
hours (Chandler, 1991)
Discussion
74
What determines the strength of the memory trace?
If Experiments 5 & 6 had more than 4 repetitions, would they cause even more interference?
Future Directions
75
Thank you!