Demonstrated change blindness with a video of a burglary, burglar changed halfway through. 61% failed to notice the change, of those that noticed the change, 65% correctly IDed both actors.
1 of 18
Loftus, Loftus & Messo (1987)
Weapon focus effect. A man either pointed a gun at a cashier or gave the cashier a cheque. People fixated more on the gun and were less likely to identify the perpetrator.
2 of 18
Steblay (1992)
Meta-analysis results find a decrease in correct perpetrator ID if a weapon is present.
3 of 18
Easterbrook (1959)
Cue-utilisation model. Arousal restricts the focus of attention to the most immediate or central cues in the environment.
4 of 18
Pickel (1999)
Unusual object hypothesis - novelty can produce similar effects, showing the importance of context.
5 of 18
Mitchell, Livosky & Mather (1998)
College students watched a videotaped event; gun, celery stick or no item. Participants answered a forced choice questionnaire. They were less likely to recall details about the perpetrator in the novel condition. Attentional effects not specific.
6 of 18
Yerkes-Dodson law (1908)
The bell-shaped curve of stress and how performance can change as stress increases.
7 of 18
Deffenbacher (1983)
Review of literature on stress.
8 of 18
Christianson (1992)
Not much evidence to support Yerkes-Dodson. Stress may enhance memory for central details and worsen it for peripheral details.
9 of 18
Hardy & Parfitt (1991)
Catastrophe model of anxiety and performance. Now used in replacement of YD law. Much more complicated.
10 of 18
Yuille & Cutshall (1986)
Field study interviewed witness of a violent crime immediately and 5 months later. Little change in accuracy over 5 months. Those with more stress recalled more details. But higher stress witnesses were closer and more involved.
11 of 18
Valentine & Mesout (2009)
Supported catastrophe model. Lower anxiety in London dungeon = more correct descriptors and more likely to identify the target.
12 of 18
Deffenbacher (2004)
Meta-analysis showing heightened stress negatively impacted eyewitness memory. ID accuracy for low anxiety = 54%but 42% = high anxiety.
Meta analyses showing significant effect of delay on correct and incorrect perpetrator identifications.
14 of 18
Shepherd (1983)
Live event. No difference in correct ID's in TP lineup between 1wk (65%), to 1 month (55%), to 3 months (50%). Dramatic decrease at 11 months (10%).
15 of 18
Ebbesen & Rienick (1998)
Varied retention interval and timing of first recall. Number of correct facts decayed, % of facts that were in error remained constant over time.
16 of 18
Tuckey & Brewer (2003a;b)
Eyewitnesses have better recall for schema-relevant information than irrelevant information. They generally interpreted ambiguous information in a way that made it consistent with the schema.
17 of 18
Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Misinformation effect - leading questions can influence a witness' memory. e.g. car crash/smash/hit etc.
18 of 18
Other cards in this set
Card 2
Front
Weapon focus effect. A man either pointed a gun at a cashier or gave the cashier a cheque. People fixated more on the gun and were less likely to identify the perpetrator.
Back
Loftus, Loftus & Messo (1987)
Card 3
Front
Meta-analysis results find a decrease in correct perpetrator ID if a weapon is present.
Back
Card 4
Front
Cue-utilisation model. Arousal restricts the focus of attention to the most immediate or central cues in the environment.
Back
Card 5
Front
Unusual object hypothesis - novelty can produce similar effects, showing the importance of context.
Comments
No comments have yet been made