due in 24 hours for PHILLIS YOUNG

Hire our professional essay experts at Gradehunters.net who are available online 24/7 for an essay paper written to a high standard at an affordable cost.

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper


Using the South University Online Library find two peer-reviewed journal articles on false memories or eyewitness memory. In your synopsis, you will include:

  • A summary of each of the journal articles
  • The main points discussed in each of the journal articles and how they relate to the week’s course and text readings
  • Your thoughts and perspectives regarding the concepts covered in each of the journal articles

Name your document: SU_PSY3002_W9_A1_LastName_FirstInitial.doc.Submit your report in a Microsoft Word document to the

W9 Assignment 1 Dropbox


Wednesday, August 23, 2017

.Cite sources using the APA format on a separate page.

due in 24 hours for PHILLIS YOUNG
Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition 5 (2016) 270–276 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition j o ur na l ho me page: www.elsevier.com/locate/jarmac The Effects of Verbal Descriptions on Eyewitness Memory: Implications for the Real-World Laura Mickes ∗ University of London, United Kingdom The criminal justice system depends on verbal accounts of crimes. Can the act of reporting a crime harm eyewitness memory for the perpetrator of that crime? The answer is yes according the verbal overshadowing effect. The verbal overshadowing effect describes the nding that memory is adversely affected after verbally describing a previously presented item (e.g., face). Often in studies of the verbal overshadowing effect, participants watch a video of a mock crime, describe the perpetrator (verbal condition) or engage in another task (control condition). In many of these studies, including the original (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990 ) and replication studies (Alogna et al., 2014 ), memory for a perpetrator is tested on target-present lineups, and, if described, the perpetrator is less often identi ed. However, it is unknown whether or not the lower identi cation rate is due to reduced discriminability or due to more conservative responding after providing a description. The verbal overshadowing effect ought to be de ned as a reduction in discriminability, which is measured by taking both the correct ID rates (from target-present lineups) and false ID rates (from target-absent lineups) into consideration. Another important and independent measure is the reliability of identi cations (i.e., the positive predictive value of a suspect identi cation made with a given level of con dence). As matters stand, the take-home message is this: too little information currently exists to allow for an assessment of the effects of verbal descriptions on discriminability and reliability; thus, the eld is not yet in a position to offer clear guidance for practice in the criminal justice system. Keywords: Eyewitness memory, Verbal overshadowing, Discriminability, Reliability, Con dence–accuracy relationship, Policy recommendations Reporting Crimes and Making Identifications From a criminal offence to completion of the ensuing court case, the criminal justice system follows a linear process. The entire process usually takes at least several months, and as shown in Figure 1 may include the crime, report, investigation (if deemed worthy by the police), eyewitness identi cation (ID) procedure administration, formal charge against the suspect, and court case. The timescale in Figure 1 represents averages of indicted cases in the UK (UK Ministry of Justice, 2011 ). Repor- ting a crime to the authorities inevitably involves describing details of the crime and the perpetrator(s). Emergency services, call dispatchers, and investigating of cers are trained to ask questions about the crime in such a way that as much accurate Author Note This work was supported by the Economic and Social Research Council [ES/L012642/1]. The content is solely the responsibility of the author and does not necessarily re ect the views of the Economic and Social Research Council. Please note that this paper was handled by the current editorial team of JARMAC. ∗Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Laura Mickes, Department of Psychology, Royal Holloway, University of London, Egham TW20 0EX, United Kingdom. Contact: [email protected] information as possible is gathered in a non-suggestive way ( Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence, 1999 ), and online self-report forms follow a similar structure (College of Policing, 2013 ). To answer questions about the perpetrator, eyewitnesses are asked to describe the individual. If needed, eyewitnesses are prompted to consider the perpetrator’s age, gender, ethnicity, height, build, distinguishing characteristics, etc. (Association of Chief Police Of cers, 2016 ). If police later identify a suspect, as part of the investigation, a lineup procedure may be administered to eyewitnesses. A lineup consists of the police suspect (who may or may not be the perpetrator) and several other individuals who physically resemble the perpetrator, called “ llers.” The lineup members WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 271 Figure 1. Criminal justice system case progression in the UK. are all presented via photos or videos, and the witness attempts to identify the perpetrator (ID in Figure 1). What if the task of verbally describing the perpetrator has a detrimental effect on memory for that very perpetrator? The Verbal Overshadowing Effect That is the implication of a nding rst reported nearly 30 years ago (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990 ). In a set of experiments, participants viewed a video of a mock robbery during the study phase, and either described the perpetrator (ver- bal condition) or engaged in a control task (control condition). Memory for the perpetrator, or target, was tested on an 8-person simultaneous target-present lineup. Surprisingly, participants in the verbal condition were less able to correctly identify the tar- get than those who were not asked to verbally describe the perpetrator. This counterintuitive nding, termed the verbal overshadowing effect, inspired much followup research with mixed results (e.g., Dodson, Johnson, & Schooler, 1997; Finger, 2002; Finger & Pezdek, 1999; Kitagami, Sato, & Yoshikawa, 2002; Nakabayashi, Lloyd-Jones, Butcher, & Liu, 2012; Smith & Flowe, 2014; Wickham & Swift, 2006 ). Because of this, and because a meta-analysis revealed a much smaller effect than the original experiments (Meissner & Brigham, 2001 ), two of the original experiments were the object of a large direct replication effort (Alogna et al., 2014 ). Figure 2 shows a schematic of the experimental design of the two replication experiments. In both experiments, the pro- cedure was delineated by the study phase (presentation of the mock crime video) and the test phase (memory tested on an 8-person lineup). The only difference between the experiments was the timing of the experimental manipulation (where par- ticipants either verbally described the perpetrator or did not). Clearly, the experimental analog is a much shorter version of the protracted criminal justice system in Figure 1, which is a point discussed later. In Experiment 1, the experimental manipulation occurred immediately after the study phase (Figure 2A ) and in Experiment 2, the experimental manipulation occurred 20 min after the study phase (Figure 2B ). The effect replicated. In both experiments, the correct ID rate (i.e., the proportion of guilty suspects identi ed from target-present lineups) was lower in the verbal condition, but markedly lower when the verbal descrip- tion was given 20 min after the study phase and immediately before the test (and the effect sizes were small, especially in Experiment 1). However, by comparing only correct ID rates, it is unclear whether the difference is due to a difference in discriminabil- ity (the ability to distinguish innocent from guilty suspects) or response bias (the likelihood of choosing a lineup member) A B Figure 2. Procedural order of the replication studies for Experiment 1 (A) and Experiment 2 (B) in Alogna et al. (2014) . (Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004; Meissner & Brigham, 2001 ). To disentangle the two possible explanations for the difference, it is necessary to include target-absent lineups in the experimental design. By doing so, false ID rates (i.e., the proportion of inno- cent suspects identi ed from target-absent lineups) can be taken into account and discriminability can be measured separately from response bias (Mickes & Wixted, 2015 ). Discriminability in Verbal Overshadowing: A Matter of Concern for Policymakers A veridical verbal overshadowing effect ought to be de ned by a reduction in discriminability (i.e., lower correct ID rates and higher false ID rates) in the verbal condition compared to the control condition. Discriminability cannot be measured by only a reduction in correct ID rates. It follows that the results of the replication studies cannot inform whether or not discriminability is affected after providing a verbal account (Mickes & Wixted, 2015; Rotello, Heit, & Dube, 2015 ). To be informed about dis- criminability, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis, which measures objective discriminability of lineup data, needs to be conducted (Gronlund, Wixted, & Mickes, 2014; National Research Council, 2014; Wixted & Mickes, 2012 ). ROC analysis was recently introduced to measure discrim- inability in lineup data (Wixted & Mickes, 2012 ), and there is currently some resistance to its use in the eld of eyewitness identi cation research (Wells, Smalarz, & Smith, 2015; Wixted & Mickes, 2015a, 2015b ). Some researchers continue to support the use of the diagnosticity ratio (DR; correct ID rate/false ID rate) to measure discriminability in preference to ROC analysis, arguing that ROC analysis is not appropriate for lineups (Wells WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 272 Table 1 Correct ID Rates from Alogna et al. (2014) , Hypothetical False ID Rates, and Corresponding d Scores and Diagnosticity Ratios (DR). The Hypothetical Val- ues are in Bold Font Different discriminabilityEqual discriminability Verbal Control Verbal Control Experiment 1 Correct ID rate 0.51 0.55 0.51 0.55 False ID rate 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.02 d 1.27 2.18 2.18 2.18 DR 4.81 27.49 32.48 27.50 Experiment 2 Correct ID rate 0.38 0.54 0.38 0.54 False ID rate 0.06 0.02 0.01 0.02 d 1.26 2.16 2.15 2.15 DR 6.37 27.18 54.29 27.00 et al., 2015 ). However, it is not clear how one can successfully argue that it is acceptable to measure overall correct and false ID rates from lineups, which are needed to compute the DR, while at the same time arguing that it is unacceptable to compute all other correct and false ID rates, which are needed to plot the ROC (e.g., by setting a more conservative standard and not counting any ID made with very low con dence). Moreover, because the DR confounds response bias and discriminability (Gronlund et al., 2014 ), it is not the pure measure of discriminability that ROC analysis is. ROC analysis is widely accepted as the preferred measure of discriminability in other elds (e.g., diagnostic medicine, experimental psychology, machine learning, physics, etc.), and it was recently deemed superior to the DR by a prestigious committee of the National Academy of Sciences charged with evaluating research methodologies and empirical ndings in eyewitness identi cation (National Research Council, 2014 ). Given its widespread use in other elds and its recent backing by the National Research Council, my own view is that it is only a matter of time before eyewitness identi cation researchers as a whole accept ROC analysis as the proper way to measure dis- criminability. Nevertheless, for now, it also seems fair to say that others disagree with my position on this issue. Only time will tell how this debate will ultimately be resolved. To conduct ROC analysis, correct ID rates are plotted against false ID rates, resulting in ROC curves for each condition. The larger the area under the ROC curve, the better the discriminabil- ity. In other words, the larger the area under the ROC curve, the better the identi cation procedure is at distinguishing between innocent and guilty suspects. Thus, for there to be a verbal over- shadowing effect, the area under the verbal condition ROC curve would need to be smaller than that of the control condition ROC curve. Though false ID rates, essential for the construction of ROC curves, are not available from the replication studies (because target-absent lineups were not included), hypothetical false ID rates can be used to demonstrate the point about discriminability. Table 1 shows the correct ID rates reported in Alogna et al. (2014) and hypothetical false ID rates. The Table 2 Concerns, Relevant Analyses, and Goals for Different Decision-Makers Policymakers Courts Concern Discriminability Reliability Analysis Receiver operating characteristicCon dence-accuracy characteristic Goal High discriminability IDs made with high con dence are highly accurate hypothetical false ID rates are in bold font. A parametric measure of discriminability, d , and diagnosticity ratio, DR, which are computed using the correct and false ID rates are also shown in bold font. Figure 3 shows four possible ROC outcomes of the replication Experiment 1 (A and B) and Experiment 2 (C and D). In both experiments, it is possible, given the available data, that the verbal condition falls on a lower ROC, as shown in Figure 3A and C. If the data yielded this pattern, then that would be a clear difference in discriminability, and one could then conclude that there is a verbal overshadowing effect. It is also possible, given the available data, that the verbal condition falls on the same ROC as the control condition, as shown in Figure 3B and D. If the data yielded this pattern, then there would not be a difference in discriminability, and thus no verbal overshadowing effect, but there would be a difference in response bias between the two conditions. Though this point can be demonstrated by using overall correct and false ID rates, ide- ally con dence ratings associated with the identi cations would be used in the analysis so that the entire locus of ROC operating points per condition can be plotted (Mickes, Flowe, & Wixted, 2012 ). When and if differences in discriminability arise after a verbal description is one fact worth knowing, and the ROC results should be used to aid decision-makers (e.g., police chiefs) charged with making procedural endorsements. Although ROC analysis provides essential information to policymakers, it does not provide particularly useful information to triers of fact (judges and juries). Triers of fact are interested in the reliability of an ID, and that information is provided by an altogether differ- ent analysis. The different concerns of different decision-makers and the relevant analyses are shown in Table 2. Reliability in Verbal Overshadowing: A Matter of Concern for the Courts Whether or not discriminability is affected by verbal reports is not a matter for judges and jurors. In the court of law, the concern is about reliability. Reliability is measured by the posi- tive predictive value (PPV) of suspect identi cations. The PPV is the probability that a suspect who was identi ed by a witness is the perpetrator. For the discussion that follows, equal base rates (i.e., half target-present lineups and half target-absent line- ups) are assumed for the sake of simplicity. Generally speaking, PPV varies directly with the base rate of target present line- ups. The PPV can be measured in several different ways. One way is to compute a DR. Using the data in Table 1 and the cor- responding ROC curves in Figure 3B to compute DR values, WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 273 False ID Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Correct ID Rate 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 Control Condition Ve rba l C ond it io n False ID Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 False ID Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Correct ID Rate 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 False I D Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0 .0 0 .2 0 .4 0 .6 0 .8 AB CD Figure 3. ROC curves constructed with correct ID rates and hypothetical false ID rates for Experiment 1 (A and B) and Experiment 2 (C and D) of Alogna et al. (2014) . The ROC curves in A and C show a clear discriminability advantage for the control condition. The ROC curves in B and D show no discriminability difference, but more conservative responding for the verbal condition. With the existing data, it is possible to have different or equal discriminability, and which it is remains unknown. for the verbal condition DR = 32.5 and for the control condition DR = 27.5. The higher DR scores in the verbal condition would mean that reliability is better in that condition (despite having the same discriminability). A related but more complete way to measure reliability is to conduct con dence-accuracy character- istic (CAC) analysis (Mickes, 2015 ). Like the DR, CAC analysis uses only correct and incorrect suspect identi cations. Thus, the dependent measure, PPV, is de ned by PPV =S g Sg+ Si, (1) where Sgis the number of correct IDs (i.e., the number of guilty suspects identi ed from target-present lineups). Sirefers to the number of innocent suspects identi ed from target-absent line- ups. When the base rates are equal, Sgand Sican be thought of as the correct and false ID rates, respectively. Using the indicative ROC curves from Figure 3A , three ROC points can be computed for low, medium, and high con- dence levels for both control and verbal conditions, shown in Figure 4A . The PPV is computed for every level of con dence and shown in Figure 4B . In Figure 4A , the ROC is lower for the verbal condition; in Figure 4B , the PPV is also lower for the verbal condition and by the same amount. In this case the verbal condition has simultaneously lower discriminability (Figure 4A ) and lower reliability (Figure 4B ). Generally higher discrim- inability is associated with higher reliability, but this is not always the case. This can be seen clearly from Figure 4C and D, where the same ROC curves are used but the ROC points are shifted towards more liberal responding for the control con- dition. Discriminability is still lower for the verbal condition ( Figure 4C ), but the PPV is actually higher in the verbal condition ( Figure 4D ). The point is that the two analyses answer different questions and, while they likely agree most of the time in practice, they are potentially dissociable (as they are in Figure 4C and D). Because of this possibility, it is necessary to analyze the data using both ROC and CAC analyses. Furthermore, the fact that the results of CAC analysis are easier to understand give it a distinct advantage over the DR. For example, 98% versus 92% accurate makes more sense than DR values of 40 versus 11. Therefore, research shedding light on the reliability of identi cations using CAC analysis is needed. Moreover, when and if differences in WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 274 Confidence Lo w Mediu m High Lo w Mediu m High 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Confidence PPV 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 Con trol Condition Verba l Condition A False ID Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Cor rect ID Rate 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 False ID Rate 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 Cor rect ID Rate 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 B C D PPV Figure 4. Hypothetical ROC curves and CAC curves. Both ROC curves (A and C) show lower discriminability for the verbal condition, but the associated PPVs differ with higher PPV in the control condition (B), and higher PPV in the verbal condition (D). This illustrates why ROC analysis and CAC analysis need to be conducted to measure discriminability and reliability, respectively. reliability arise after a verbal description is worth knowing, and the results should be used to aid decision-makers (e.g., judges and jurors) charged with making judgments about culpability (see Table 2). Conclusions Collecting verbal reports from eyewitnesses of crimes is an inescapable necessity. As the research currently stands, we lack suf cient information about discriminability (a matter of con- cern for policymakers) and reliability (a matter of concern for judges and jurors) to make recommendations to guide practice. Furthermore, different patterns may arise that are contingent on the intervals between exposure and description and identi ca- tion. After all, different retention intervals differentially affect correct ID rates (Alogna et al., 2014 ). Does that nding re ect a difference in discriminability or a difference in response bias? There was a glimpse in the replication studies that discrim- inability is lower after time lapses between the crime and the report. In Experiment 1, in which the experimental manipu- lation occurred immediately after the study phase and 20 min before the identi cation test (see Figure 2A ), the correct ID rates and the ller ID rates (i.e., identi cations made to llers in the target-present lineup) were lower in the verbal condition than in the control condition. This pattern suggests a shift in response bias. However, in Experiment 2, in which the experi- mental manipulation occurred 20 min after the study phase and immediately before the lineup test (see Figure 2B ), the ller ID rates were no different for the verbal condition versus the con- trol condition despite the fact that correct ID rates were lower in the former condition. This pattern suggests that there was not a shift in response bias, but lower discriminability. However, ROC analysis is required to de nitively answer the question of discriminability and importantly, if the ROC curves are repeat- edly lower with longer delays between crime and description, then the police should encourage eyewitnesses to report crimes as soon as possible. What about reliability? That is what CAC analysis will reveal. If the CAC curves are higher, but the ROC curve is lower in the verbal condition (a possibility demonstrated in Figure 4C and D), then the conclusion would be that the verbal overshadowing effect is real, but, compared to the control condition, identi – cations made with high con dence from the verbal condition are more reliable anyway. This scenario may arise because the task of verbally describing the perpetrator is a challenging one. That fact may be appreciated by the participants in that condition WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 275 who in turn may be more cautious to make an identi cation with high con dence (Clare & Lewandowsky, 2004 ). Both hypothet- ical CAC scenarios in Figure 4 are possible. Another important question is whether the timing of the verbal description and later identi cation differentially affect reliability (as it might with discriminability). The research has yet to, but needs to, be conducted. The effects of verbal descriptions on eyewitness memory is worth investigating using procedures that are more protracted to mimic the experience of real eyewitnesses (i.e., eyewitnesses do not provide a verbal description immediately after seeing the perpetrator, nor would a lineup procedure be administered immediately after describing the perpetrator; Mickes & Wixted, 2015 ). In addition to extending the procedural timeline, target- absent lineups need to be included, and the appropriate analyses need to be conducted. Con dence should be collected (1) to measure discriminability (with ROC analysis) and to measure reliability (with CAC analysis), and (2) because con dence at rst identi cation is diagnostic of accuracy (e.g., Brewer & Wells, 2006; Horry, Palmer, & Brewer, 2012; Palmer, Brewer, Weber, & Nagesh, 2013; Sauer, Brewer, Zweck, & Weber, 2009; Wixted, Mickes, Clark, Gronlund, & Roediger, 2015 ). Once we have a body of work that replicates and researchers have come to a general consensus about the interpretations of the results, then we can guide practice. But we are not quite there yet. References Alogna, V. K., Attaya, M. K., Aucoin, P. , Bahnik, S., Birch, S., & Birt, A. R. (2014). Registered replication report: Schooler & Engstler-Schooler (1990). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 9, 556–579. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691614545653 Association of Chief Police Of cers. (2016). True vision association of chief police officers. http://report-it.org.uk/home Brewer, N., & Wells, G. L. (2006). The con dence–accuracy relation- ship in eyewitness identi cation: Effects of lineup instructions, foil similarity, and target-absent base rates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 12, 11–30. Clare, J., & Lewandowsky, S. (2004). Verbalizing facial memory: Criterion effects in verbal overshadowing. Journal of Experimen- tal Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 30, 739–755. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.30.4.739 College of Policing. (2013). Investigation: Investigative interview- ing. https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/investigations/ investigative-interviewing/#structuring-a-witness-interview Dodson, C. S., Johnson, M. K., & Schooler, J. W. (1997). The verbal overshadowing effect: Why descriptions impair face recogni- tion. Memory & Cognition, 25, 129–139. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ BF03201107 Finger, K. (2002). Mazes and music: Using perceptual processing to release verbal overshadowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 887–896. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.922 Finger, K., & Pezdek, K. (1999). The effect of the cognitive interview on face identi cation accuracy: Release from verbal overshadowing. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 340–348. Gronlund, S. D., Wixted, J. T. , & Mickes, L. (2014). Evaluating eyewitness identi cation procedures using receiver operating char- acteristic analysis. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 3–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0963721413498891 Horry, R., Palmer, M. A., & Brewer, N. (2012). Backloading in the sequential lineup prevents within-lineup criterion shifts that undermine eyewitness identi cation performance. Journal of Exper- imental Psychology: Applied, 18, 346–360. Kitagami, S., Sato, W. , & Yoshikawa, S. (2002). The in uence of test-set similarity in verbal overshadowing. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 16, 963–972. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.917 Meissner, C. A., & Brigham, J. C. (2001). A meta-analysis of the ver- bal overshadowing effect in face identi cation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 15, 603–616. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.728 Mickes, L. (2015). Receiver operating characteristic analysis and con- dence accuracy characteristic analysis in investigations of system variables and estimator variables that affect eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 93–102. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.01.003 Mickes, L., Flowe, H. D., & Wixted, J. T. (2012). Receiver operating characteristic analysis of eyewitness memory: Comparing the diag- nostic accuracy of simultaneous versus sequential lineups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 18, 361–376. Mickes, L., & Wixted, J. T. (2015). On the applied implications of the “verbal overshadowing effect”. Perspectives on Psychological Sci- ence, 10, 400–403. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691615576762 Nakabayashi, K., Lloyd-Jones, T. J., Butcher, N., & Liu, C. H. (2012). Independent in uences of verbalization and race on the con gural and featural processing of faces: A behavioral and eye movement study. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 38, 61–77. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0024853 National Research Council. (2014). Identifying the culprit: Assessing eyewitness identification. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.17226/18891 Palmer, M. A., Brewer, N., Weber, N., & Nagesh, A. (2013). The con dence–accuracy relationship for eyewitness identi cation deci- sions: Effects of exposure duration, retention interval, and divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 19, 55–71. Rotello, C. M., Heit, E., & Dube, C. (2015). When more data steer us wrong: replications with the wrong dependent measure perpet- uate erroneous conclusions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 22, 944–954. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13423-014-0759-2 Sauer, J., Brewer, N., Zweck, T. , & Weber, N. (2009). The effect of retention interval on the con dence–accuracy relationship for eye- witness identi cation. Law and Human Behavior? 34, 337–347. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10979-009-9192-x Schooler, J. W. , & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshad- owing of visual memories: Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 36–71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0010- 0285(90)90003-M Smith, H. M. J., & Flowe, H. D. (2014). Roc analysis of the ver- bal overshadowing effect: Testing the effect of verbalisation on memory sensitivity. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 29, 159–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.3096 Technical Working Group for Eyewitness Evidence. (1999). Eyewitness evidence: A guide for law enforcement. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, Of ce of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdf les1/nij/178240.pdf UK Ministry of Justice. (2011, June). Time intervals survey of criminal proceedings in magistrates’ courts. https://www.gov.uk/ government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment data/ le/217768/ tis-bulletin-0611.pdf Wells, G. L., Smalarz, L., & Smith, A. M. (2015). Roc analysis of line- ups does not measure underlying discriminability and has limited value. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 313–317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.008 WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF VERBAL DESCRIPTIONS ON EYEWITNESS MEMORY? 276 Wickham, L. H. V. , & Swift, H. (2006). Articulatory suppression atten- uates the verbal overshadowing effect: A role for verbal encoding in face identi cation. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 157–169. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/acp.1176 Wixted, J. T. , & Mickes, L. (2012). The eld of eyewitness memory should abandon probative value and embrace receiver operating characteristic analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 275–278. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691612442906 http://pps.sagepub.com/content/7/3/275.abstract Wixted, J. T. , & Mickes, L. (2015a]). Evaluating eyewitness identi – cation procedures: Roc analysis and its misconceptions. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 318–323. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.009 Wixted, J. T. , & Mickes, L. (2015b]). Roc analysis measures objec- tive discriminability for any eyewitness identi cation procedure. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 4, 329–334. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2015.08.007 Wixted, J. T. , Mickes, L., Clark, S. E., Gronlund, S. D., & Roediger, H. L., III. (2015). Initial eyewitness con dence reliably predicts eyewit- ness identi cation accuracy. American Psychologist, 70, 515–526. Received 1 May 2016; received in revised form 3 July 2016; accepted 3 July 2016
due in 24 hours for PHILLIS YOUNG
Introduction to this Issue: Children’s Eyewitness Memory and Testimony in Context Rakel P. Larson, Ph.D.* , Deborah Goldfarb, JD and Gail S. Goodman, Ph.D. Increasingly, children are being called upon to participate in a variety of forensic and courtroom contexts that affect their welfare (Cashmore, 2014; Head, 2011; U.N. General Assembly, 1989). Alongside this movement, research on child witnesses and victims has burgeoned. For this special issue ofBehavioral Sciences and the Law,weinvitedresearchers to share their expertise and contribute current studies about the role of contextual factors on children’s eyewitness memory and testimony, and related matters. Topics cover a wide variety of issues pertaining to child witnesses and victims, including the reliability of chil- dren’s testimony, forensic interview techniques, participation in court proceedings, pro- spective juror-decision making, delays in prosecution, and religion-related abuse. To begin this special issue, thefirstfive papers address topics related to children’s involvement in forensic interviews. Given the rising dependence on children’s reports in a variety of forensic and legal contexts, the need for evidence-based methods to elicit sensitive and reliable information from children is clear. Building rapport with children is one procedure that is recommended by virtually all forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines, including the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Protocol (Lamb, La Rooy, Malloy, & Katz, 2011), the StepWise Interview (Yuille, Hunter, Joffe, & Zaparniuk, 1993), the Memorandum of Good Practice (Davies & Westcott, 1999), the child-adapted version of the Cognitive Interview (Fisher & Geiselman, 1992; Saywitz, Geiselman, & Bornstein, 1992), and the Narrative Elaboration Technique (NET; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013), as part of a successful interview strategy to reduce children’s anxiety and increase the quality, quantity, and accuracy of their reports. In ourfirst paper, Saywitz, Larson, Hobbs, and Wells (pp. 372–389) report on a systematic review of the research literature to evaluate whether there is a core body of experimental studies with randomized controlled trials that test the effects of rapport on the reliability of children’s reports. The paper provides insights into and identifies gaps in the current knowledge base regarding the effects of rapport-building on children’s memory accuracy and offers strategies for redefining future research agendas. Children may be exposed to postevent misinformation before an interview commences and this inaccurate information may become incorporated into their later memory reports (see, e.g., Ceci, Loftus, Leichtman & Bruck, 1994). Schaaf, *Correspondence to: Rakel P. Larson, Department of Psychology, University of California, 1 Shields Avenue, Davis, California, 95616 USA. E-mail: [email protected] Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behavioral Sciences and the Law Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/bsl.2196 Bederian-Gardner, and Goodman (pp. 390–406) examine whether explicitly instructing children to ignore misleading postevent information can help bolster their memory accuracy. Four- and 6-year-old children engaged in an interactive play event with a re- searcher and were then interviewed about the play event after a 2-week delay. As part of the experimental manipulation, children were exposed to no postevent misinformation be- tween the two sessions, exposed to misinformation, or exposed to misinformation and given a logic-of-opposition instruction (i.e., an explicit instruction to ignore information that they were exposed to after the original play event) before the start of the memory inter- view. The results suggest that the accuracy of even very young children’s memory reports can be improved by providing children with an explicit instruction to ignore misleading postevent information. The study also provides insights into the sources of malleability in children’s memory reports and, specifically, the underlying causes of the postevent mis- information effect. During the course of a forensic interview, investigators may ask children to disclose sensitive, embarrassing, or potentially uncomfortable information. Thus, these kinds of interviews require a level of openness and honesty from children that is not typical in their everyday interactions with adults. Such requirements may make some witnesses reluctant to participate in the criminal justice process. For instance, children may choose not to disclose maltreatment to a forensic interviewer for a variety of reasons (e.g., fear of retaliation, confusion about what occurred). Indeed, delayed disclosures are common among child sexual abuse victims (Goodmanet al., 2003). Omission of abuse details during forensic interviews may lead to later memory impairment given the lack of opportunity for rehearsal. Altering an abuse narrative by self-generating false details about the event may also influence later recall. Newton and Hobbs (pp. 407–428) addressed these topics in the third paper in this special issue by using a simulated mem- ory impairment paradigm with adults to evaluate how rehearsal and altering narrative details about a child sexual abuse scenario can affect later memory recall. Participants read afirst-person narrative about child sexual abuse, role-played as the child victim, and were then asked to recall the abuse scenario by either omitting details, confabulat- ing details, or not changing any details, or they were not asked to recall the story at all. Approximately 1 week later, participants’memories for the story were tested. The re- sults have implications for research regarding the effects of delayed disclosure and false confabulations on memory impairment. Children are commonly questioned by forensic investigators and attorneys about abuse-related conversations, such as what the alleged perpetrator instructed the victim to do (Lyon & Stolzenberg, 2014; Stolzenberg & Lyon, 2014). In our fourth paper, Lawson and London (pp. 429–445) assess 8-year-old children’s ability to provide conversational testimony about a novel event after either a 1-week or 3-week delay. This paperfills an important gap in extant literature by being one of thefirst studies to evaluate children’s memory for dyadic conversations and, specifically, their ability to recall utterances generated by adults. Ground rules–that is, instructions provided to children before substantive questioning–are commonly adopted in forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines (Lambet al., 2011; Saywitz & Camparo, 2013). These rules are intended to help children navigate the unique expectations that are present in the forensic inter- view context compared with those in children’s typical interactions with adults. For instance, in a typical adult–child interaction, children are not expected to correct an adult if the adult makes a mistake, yet this expectation is present in the forensic 368 R. P. Larsonet al. Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl interview context. In ourfifth paper, Danby, Brubacher, Sharman, and Powell (pp. 446–458) investigate whether providing 5- to 9-year-old children with practice using three ground rules (i.e.,“don’t know,”“don’t understand,”and“correct me” instructions) led to more spontaneous use of the rules during free recall and application of the rules at the end of the interview in response to challenge questions. The results of this study contribute to our understanding of developmental differ- ences in the ability to apply different kinds of ground rules and the extent to which practice improves children’s use of rules throughout the course of forensic interviews. Our next set of papers follows the logical course of an investigation after forensic interviewing, namely children’s participation in court proceedings. Research suggests that facing the accused and being cross-examined are two of the most anxiety-provok- ing experiences for children (Goodmanet al., 1992; Hobbset al., 2014; Sas, Austin, Wolfe, & Hurley, 1991). These specific and other general fears about participating in the criminal justice process may influence children’s ability to provide sensitive, com- plete, and accurate information (Blocket al., 2010; Nathanson & Saywitz, 2003) and may affect their long-term psychological and emotional welfare (Goodmanet al., 1992; Quaset al., 2005). As a response to these concerns, pretrial court preparation programs have begun to be developed across the world (e.g., Kid’s Court School in the United States). In our sixth paper, Nathanson and Saywitz (pp. 459–475) evaluate the effectiveness of one such pretrial preparation program, which includes legal knowl- edge education, stress inoculation training, and a mock trial that offers opportunities for practice using stress reduction strategies and answering questions, on reducing an- ticipatory court-related anxiety of 4- to 17-year-olds. This study provides preliminary evidence that children’s participation in Nathanson and Saywitz’s preparation program before testifying in court is associated with anxiety reduction. As previously mentioned, ground rule instructions and the use of rapport are recommended procedures in most forensic interview protocols and best-practice guidelines. The extent to which attorneys actually incorporate these recommendations into practice during direct questioning with children is addressed in the seventh paper. Ahern, Stolzenberg, and Lyon (pp. 476–492) reviewed transcripts of felony child sexual abuse cases in Los Angeles county to evaluate the quality and frequency with which prosecutors deliver key ground rule instructions, build rapport, and rely on open-ended prompts before the topic of abuse is introduced. The results of the study are important in illuminating discrepancies between best-practice guidelines and actual implementa- tion of recommendations in real-world contexts. The next two papers examine whether innovative techniques and changes in the courtroom context can bolster witness credibility and potentially influence juror decision-making. In the study described by Golding, Wasarhaley, Lynch, Lippert, and Magyarics (pp. 493–507), participants read a trial summary in which a 6- or 15-year-old child accused her stepfather of rape. The trial summary included testimony from a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE), a registered nurse who was not a SANE, or no nurse. Mock jurors’ratings (e.g., sympathy toward the victim, defendant guilt) were then obtained. McAuliff, Lapin, and Michel (pp. 508–527) assessed whether the use of support persons (i.e., adults who accompany children testifying or attending legal proceedings to provide emotional comfort) influence judgments about the credi- bility of child witnesses and verdicts. In this study, adults viewed simulated testimony from an 11-year-old female victim of sexual assault either with a support person sitting Children’s eyewitness memory 369 Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl next to her or without. Participants then made judgments regarding the child’s accu- racy and trustworthiness as well as the defendant’s guilt. The results of both of these studies suggest that factors associated with the courtroom context, such as the presence or absence of a SANE or support person, may influence jurors’verdicts and evaluations of child witness credibility. Delays in prosecution may result in the decay or distortion of memories. Additionally, the lack of resolution and continued anticipatory anxiety about testifying may take a toll on the emotional and psychological well-being of child witnesses (Plotnikoff & Woolfson, 1995). The next two papers in this special issue address delays in prosecution. Walsh, Lippert, Goldberg Edelson, and Jones (pp. 528–545) used a mixed methods approach (i.e., retrospective casefile analysis on chargesfiled between January 1, 2007 and December, 31, 2008 that were decided by December 31, 2012; and in-depth interviews) to assess the court culture of three Oregon counties, the length of time with which it took to resolve felony child sexual abuse cases compared with other felony cases, and the effect of“churning”(i.e., rescheduling of court cases) on case resolution time. Connolly, Chong, Coburn, and Lutgens (pp. 546–560) conducted an archival analysis of child sexual abuse complaints that were heard in criminal courts in Canada between 1986 and 2012. The researchers compared delayed and timely complaints and evaluated whether systemic factors (e.g., legal barriers) or intrinsic factors (e.g., nature of the offense) were associated with delayed prosecutions. Both of these studies provide important insights into the factors that increase the probability of delayed prosecution. To conclude this special issue, thefinal two papers address contextual factors concerning child maltreatment through discussion of religion-related abuse cases. Bottoms, Goodman, Toulou-Shams, Diviak, and Shaver (pp. 561–579) identified 249 cases of religion-related abuse from 86 district attorney offices, social service depart- ments, and law enforcement agencies. The researchers evaluated characteristics of the abuse cases (e.g., types of maltreatment, settings in which the abuse or neglect took place), the characteristics of victims and perpetrators in these cases (e.g., perpetrator and victim gender, victim age, relationship to the perpetrator, religious affiliation of the victims and perpetrators), the credibility of the allegations, and case outcomes. Calkins, Fargo, Jeglic, and Terry (pp. 580–594) investigated the casefiles of 1,121 North American Catholic clergy accused of child maltreatment. Guided by a social–ecological model of violence, researchers evaluated individual-level (e.g., dating history), relation- ship-level (e.g., quality of interaction with youth), and community-level (e.g., sought opportunities to work with youth) risk factors associated with a higher probability of abuse among clergy. Both the Bottomset al. and Calkinset al. studies contribute to our knowledge base of the contexts and circumstances in which religion-related abuse occurs and provide potential avenues for intervention. In summary, this special issue offers important insights into the various contexts in which child maltreatment occurs, is disclosed, and is evaluated and processed by the legal system. Specifically, the reader will be guided through issues concerning children’s eyewitness memory and testimony as it related to contexts in which abuse occurs, to disclosure and early stages of a forensic interview, all the way to child witnesses’participation in court proceedings. Taken together, the research presented here will hopefully further your understanding of the many complex issues that pertain to child witnesses and victims and inform future research, practice, and policy. 370 R. P. Larsonet al. Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl REFERENCES Block, S. D., Oran, H. S., Oran, D., Baumrind, N., & Goodman, G. S. (2010). Abused and neglected children in court: Knowledge and attitudes.Child Abuse & Neglect,34, 659–670. doi:10.1016/j. chiabu.2010.02.003. Cashmore, J. (2014). Children living away from home. In G. Melton, A. Ben-Arieh, J. Cashmore, G. S. Goodman, & N. K. Worley (Eds.),The Sage handbook of child research(pp. 197–207). London: Sage. Ceci, S. J., Loftus, E. F., Leichtman, M. D., & Bruck, M. (1994). The possible role of source misattributions in the creation of false beliefs among preschoolers.International Journal of Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis,42, 304–320. Davies, G. M., & Westcott, H. L. (1999).Interviewing child witnesses under the Memorandum of Good Practice: A research review. London: Home Office Police and Reducing Crime Unit. Fisher, R. P., & Geiselman, R. E. (1992).Memory-enhancing techniques in investigative interviewing: The cognitive interview. Springfield, IL: Thomas. Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Quas, J. A., Edelstein, R. S., Alexander, K. W., Redlich, A. D.,…Jones, D. P. H. (2003). A prospective study of memory for child sexual abuse: Newfindings relevant to the repressed- memory controversy.Psychological Science,14, 113–118. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.01428 Goodman, G. S., Taub, E. P., Jones, D. P. H., England, P., Port, L. K., Rudy, L., & Prado, L. (1992). Testifying in criminal court.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,57(5, Serial No. 229), 1–142. DOI: 10.2307/1166127 Head, B. W. (2011). Why not ask them? Mapping and promoting youth participation.Children and Youth Services Review,33, 541–547. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.05.015. Hobbs, S. D., Goodman, G. S., Block, S. D., Oran, D., Quas, J. A., Park, A, Widaman, K. F., Baumrind, N. (2014). Child maltreatment victims’ attitudes about appearing in dependency and criminal courts.Children and Youth Services Review,44, 407–416. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.07.001 Lamb,M.E.,LaRooy,D.J.,Malloy,L.C.,&Katz,C.(2011).Children’s testimony: A handbook of psychological research and forensic practice. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons. doi: 10.1002/9781119998495 Lyon, T. D., & Stolzenberg, S. N. (2014). Children’s memory for conversations about sexual abuse: Legal and psychological implications.Roger Williams University Law Review,19, 411–450. http://docs.rwu.edu/ rwu_LR/vol19/iss2/5 Nathanson, R., & Saywitz, K. J. (2003). The effects of the courtroom context on children’s memory and anxiety.Journal of Psychiatry and Law,31,67–98. Plotnikoff, J., & Woolfson, R. (1995).Prosecuting child abuse: An evaluation of the government’s speedy progress policy. London: Blackstone. Quas, J. A., Goodman, G. S., Ghetti, S., Alexander, K. W., Edelstein, R., Redlich, A. D., Cordon, I. M., & Jones, D. P. H. (2005). Childhood sexual assault victims: Long-term outcomes after testifying in criminal court.Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,70(2, Serial No. 280), 1–128. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5834.2005.00337.x Sas, L., Austin, G., Wolfe, D. A., & Hurley, P. (1991).Reducing the system-induced trauma for child sexual abuse victims through court preparation, assessment and follow-up(Final Report, Project No. 4555-1-125, National Welfare Grants Division, Health and Welfare Canada). London, Ontario: London Family Court Clinic. Saywitz, K. J., & Camparo, L. B. (2013).Evidence-based child forensic interviewing: The Developmental Narrative Elaboration Interview. New York: Oxford University Press. Saywitz, K. J., Geiselman, R., & Bornstein, G. (1992). Effects of cognitive interviewing and practice on children’s recall performance.Journal of Applied Psychology,77, 744–756. Stolzenberg, S. N., & Lyon, T. D. (2014). How attorneys question children about the dynamics of sexual abuse and disclosure in criminal trials.Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,20,19–30. doi:10.1037/ a0035000. U.N. General Assembly. (1989).Convention on the Rights of the Child, 20 November 1989(United Nations Treaty Series, 1577). Retrieved from http://www.un.org/documents/ga/res/44/a44r025.htm on July 20, 2015. Yuille, J. C., Hunter, R., Joffe, R., & Zaparniuk, J. (1993). Interviewing children in sexual abuse cases. In G. S. Goodman, & B. L. Bottoms (Eds.),Child victims, child witnesses: Understanding and improving testimony (pp. 95–115). New York: Guilford.Children’s eyewitness memory 371 Copyright#2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Behav. Sci. Law33: 367–371 (2015) DOI: 10.1002/bsl Copyright ofBehavioral Sciences&the Law isthe property ofJohn Wiley &Sons, Inc.and its content maynotbecopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without the copyright holder’sexpresswrittenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles forindividual use.


Everyone needs a little help with academic work from time to time. Hire the best essay writing professionals working for us today!

Get a 15% discount for your first order

Order a Similar Paper Order a Different Paper