Yarmey
Aim: To test the ability to identify a target person from a photo line up, To look at whether preparation affects recall, to test duration of ability to recall a target person.
Procedure: 590 P’s from an opportunity sample were used in the actual experiment and 370 students asked to make a prediction over what they thought the findings would be. Female target asked pp’s for directions or help finding jewellery. Two mins later pp’s approached by a female researcher and asked to participate in a study about perception and memory. Pp’s given 16 questions about physical and clothing characteristics about target person. Then were then shown 6 photos similar to target person and asked to identify her. Pp’s told the target may or may not be in the set of photos.
Variations:
Preparation – some pp’s told by female target to prepare for memory test
Retention time span – immediately or 4 hours later
Line up – some pp’s shown photos including target others did not
Findings: Jewellery and eye colour = poor recall small characteristics; Weight hard to judge; Footwear out of visual field. Preparation of being told of a memory test only helped recall of clothing characteristics, not for photo identification.
Time of recall did not make a difference
49% correctly identified target when in the line up; 62% correctly rejected line up when target not present. Students predicted 63% would accurately identify the target when present, and under estimated how many would reject the line up when the target was not present (47%)
Conclusion: Witness preparation did not improve eyewitness identification. Students who were asked to make predictions over estimated how many pp’s would correctly identify the target person
Evaluation
Generalisability: Large sample size and a range of pp’s both male and female and of different ages. An opportunity sample is also realistic of witnesses to a crime.
Reliability: Lack of control over situational variables. Witnesses may have been too busy, not known the directions and spent less time with the confederate. However this might be more realistic of witnesses to real crimes
Application: Psychology students could not accurately predict the recall of witnesses and significantly overestimated the number who would identify the target. This means many jurors may also be overly confident on the account given to them by a witness.
Validity: High ecological validity, field experiment and took place in a realistic environment for asking for directions. Higher validity than lab studies as witnesses unaware they are being studied when approached by target so could not be demand characteristics.
However witnesses usually needed for more serious incidents than simply finding jewellery or directions so may not apply fully to EWT.
Ethics: Field experiment so pp’s did not give any form of consent and were deceived. However this is mild deception and pp’s were given a debrief afterwards and opportunity to withdraw
Aim: To test the ability to identify a target person from a photo line up, To look at whether preparation affects recall, to test duration of ability to recall a target person.
Procedure: 590 P’s from an opportunity sample were used in the actual experiment and 370 students asked to make a prediction over what they thought the findings would be. Female target asked pp’s for directions or help finding jewellery. Two mins later pp’s approached by a female researcher and asked to participate in a study about perception and memory. Pp’s given 16 questions about physical and clothing characteristics about target person. Then were then shown 6 photos similar to target person and asked to identify her. Pp’s told the target may or may not be in the set of photos.
Variations:
Preparation – some pp’s told by female target to prepare for memory test
Retention time span – immediately or 4 hours later
Line up – some pp’s shown photos including target others did not
Findings: Jewellery and eye colour = poor recall small characteristics; Weight hard to judge; Footwear out of visual field. Preparation of being told of a memory test only helped recall of clothing characteristics, not for photo identification.
Time of recall did not make a difference
49% correctly identified target when in the line up; 62% correctly rejected line up when target not present. Students predicted 63% would accurately identify the target when present, and under estimated how many would reject the line up when the target was not present (47%)
Conclusion: Witness preparation did not improve eyewitness identification. Students who were asked to make predictions over estimated how many pp’s would correctly identify the target person
Evaluation
Generalisability: Large sample size and a range of pp’s both male and female and of different ages. An opportunity sample is also realistic of witnesses to a crime.
Reliability: Lack of control over situational variables. Witnesses may have been too busy, not known the directions and spent less time with the confederate. However this might be more realistic of witnesses to real crimes
Application: Psychology students could not accurately predict the recall of witnesses and significantly overestimated the number who would identify the target. This means many jurors may also be overly confident on the account given to them by a witness.
Validity: High ecological validity, field experiment and took place in a realistic environment for asking for directions. Higher validity than lab studies as witnesses unaware they are being studied when approached by target so could not be demand characteristics.
However witnesses usually needed for more serious incidents than simply finding jewellery or directions so may not apply fully to EWT.
Ethics: Field experiment so pp’s did not give any form of consent and were deceived. However this is mild deception and pp’s were given a debrief afterwards and opportunity to withdraw