Effects of different types of forensic information on eyewitness’ memory and confidence accuracy

IF 7.6 1区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context Pub Date : 2014-01-01 DOI:10.5093/ejpalc2014a3
Farhan Sarwar , Carl Martin Allwood , Åse Innes-Ker
{"title":"Effects of different types of forensic information on eyewitness’ memory and confidence accuracy","authors":"Farhan Sarwar ,&nbsp;Carl Martin Allwood ,&nbsp;Åse Innes-Ker","doi":"10.5093/ejpalc2014a3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>This study investigated eyewitnesses’ memory and confidence accuracy for action information (what happened at the crime scene), and detail information (descriptions of persons, objects, time and place). In Experiment 1, 89 participants watched a film and participated in one of four conditions: Laboratory discussion, Family discussion, Retell and Control, the first three with five meetings each. Three weeks later all participants open free recalled the events, and confidence judged their answers. The participants showed better free recall and confidence accuracy for action than for detail information. Participants in the two discussion conditions and in the Retell condition recalled more items and those in the Lab-discussion and Retell conditions more correct items for action information, than those in Control group. However, the four conditions did not differ for proportion correct of all action items recalled and confidence accuracy for action items. In brief, Experiment 1 showed that witness discussions and retellings of the experienced event with others improved recall for action information but had had no, or small, effects on confidence accuracy. Experiment 2 investigated recall and confidence accuracy performance for action and detail information using focused questions. Seventy-seven participants watched a film, answered and confidence judged 63 questions about action and detail information about the events. Again, participants showed better memory and confidence accuracy for action information. Overall, the results indicate that, for both free recall and focused questions, witnesses’ recall and confidence accuracy is better for action information than for detail information, thus extra precaution is needed in the forensic system when detail information from witnesses is considered.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":46030,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","volume":"6 1","pages":"Pages 17-27"},"PeriodicalIF":7.6000,"publicationDate":"2014-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.5093/ejpalc2014a3","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Psychology Applied To Legal Context","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1889186114700083","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

This study investigated eyewitnesses’ memory and confidence accuracy for action information (what happened at the crime scene), and detail information (descriptions of persons, objects, time and place). In Experiment 1, 89 participants watched a film and participated in one of four conditions: Laboratory discussion, Family discussion, Retell and Control, the first three with five meetings each. Three weeks later all participants open free recalled the events, and confidence judged their answers. The participants showed better free recall and confidence accuracy for action than for detail information. Participants in the two discussion conditions and in the Retell condition recalled more items and those in the Lab-discussion and Retell conditions more correct items for action information, than those in Control group. However, the four conditions did not differ for proportion correct of all action items recalled and confidence accuracy for action items. In brief, Experiment 1 showed that witness discussions and retellings of the experienced event with others improved recall for action information but had had no, or small, effects on confidence accuracy. Experiment 2 investigated recall and confidence accuracy performance for action and detail information using focused questions. Seventy-seven participants watched a film, answered and confidence judged 63 questions about action and detail information about the events. Again, participants showed better memory and confidence accuracy for action information. Overall, the results indicate that, for both free recall and focused questions, witnesses’ recall and confidence accuracy is better for action information than for detail information, thus extra precaution is needed in the forensic system when detail information from witnesses is considered.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
不同类型的法医信息对目击证人记忆和信心准确性的影响
本研究调查了目击者对行动信息(犯罪现场发生了什么)和细节信息(人物、物体、时间和地点的描述)的记忆和信心准确性。在实验1中,89名参与者观看了一部电影,并参与了四种情况中的一种:实验室讨论、家庭讨论、复述和控制,前三种情况各有五次会议。三周后,所有自由开放的参与者回忆起这些事件,并用信心来评判他们的回答。与细节信息相比,参与者对行动的自由回忆和自信准确性表现得更好。两种讨论条件和复述条件下的参与者比对照组的参与者回忆起更多的项目,实验室讨论和复述条件下的参与者回忆起更多正确的行动信息项目。然而,四种条件对所有动作项目的比例正确率和动作项目的信心正确率没有差异。简而言之,实验1表明,与他人讨论和复述经历过的事件可以提高对行动信息的回忆,但对信心准确性没有或只有很小的影响。实验二采用焦点问题考察了动作信息和细节信息的回忆和信心正确率。77名参与者观看了一部电影,回答并自信地判断了63个关于行动和事件细节信息的问题。再一次,参与者表现出更好的记忆力和对行动信息的信心准确性。总体而言,结果表明,无论是自由回忆还是聚焦问题,证人对行动信息的回忆和信心准确性都优于对细节信息的回忆和信心准确性,因此在法庭系统中,当考虑证人的细节信息时,需要额外的预防。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.60
自引率
9.50%
发文量
10
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Psychology Applied to Legal Context, the official journal of the Sociedad Española de Psicología Jurídica y Forense [Spanish Society of Forensic Psychology] and the Asociación Iberoamericana de Justicia Terapéutica [Latin-American Association of Therapeutic Jurisprudence], publishes empirical articles and meta-analytic reviews of topics dealing with psychology and law (e.g., legal decision making, eyewitness). The journal is aimed at researchers, academics and professionals in Psychology, Law, Social Work, Forensic Sciences, Educators and, in general, people related with Social Sciences and the Law.
期刊最新文献
Reality Monitoring: una revisión meta-analítica para la práctica forense Psychosocial Prevention Programs against Radicalization and Extremism: A Meta-Analysis of Outcome Evaluations Attitudes towards School Violence Questionnaire, Revised Version: CAHV-28 Longitudinal Patterns of Antisocial Behaviors in Early Adolescence: A Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis Which Tactics of Sexual Violence Predict Leaving the Relationship? The Role of Dependence towards Partner
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1