No description available.

Eyewitnesses to crimes sometimes perform cognitively demanding tasks while simultaneously observing a perpetrator. This division of attentional resources can cause them to remember the perpetrator less accurately. Pickel et al. (in press) showed that judging a target individual’s veracity impairs subsequent memory for his or her appearance and message. They argued that this result occurred because judging veracity is an attention-demanding task that is difficult to perform while simultaneously encoding the target’s information. The previous study also demonstrated that suspicion exaggerated the memory impairment effect, apparently by inducing suspicious witnesses to scrutinize the target more closely than non-suspicious witnesses. The goal of the present study was to replicate the findings that judging veracity impairs witnesses’ memory for the target’s appearance and message using a different video (i.e., a different target, crime scenario, and message) and that induced suspicion exaggerates this effect. In addition, I hypothesized that judging veracity also impairs witnesses’ performance on a lineup task and inflates confidence and ratings on other testimony-relevant judgments by giving witnesses the false sense that they have attended closely to the suspect’s physical appearance and message. I hypothesize that suspicion will exaggerate this effect. Results were found to be consistent with Pickel et al.’s (in press) previous findings. Witnesses who judged veracity performed more poorly on the lineup task than those who were not informed they would need to judge veracity, and witnesses who were made suspicious performed worse than those who judged veracity. Differences were discovered across the groups in relation to certainty ratings and other testimony-relevant judgments about the eyewitness experience. / Department of Psychological Science

This study was designed to test for the effect of role of presenter during a showup (one-person lineup) and eyewitnesses' authoritarianism on identification rates. Specifically, this study addressed the question of whether or not eyewitnesses are more likely to identify a suspect as the perpetrator of a crime when they make their identifications to a police officer rather than a civilian, and whether authoritarianism interacts with presenter role. 169 participants witnessed a staged theft and were then asked to make an identification of a suspect in a showup. Interpretation of the results suggested that the presence of a police officer during a showup increases identification rates of the suspect. Also, a higher level of authoritarianism in the eyewitness and the presence of a police officer increase the confidence eyewitnesses have in their identification. Implications for law enforcement and future research are discussed. Acknowledgements: Special thanks to David Taylor, Emily Zumbaugh, KimberlyBolich, and Christina Waddups for their assistance with data collection. / Department of Psychological Science

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Baylor University, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 79-83).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at El Paso, 2008. / Title from title screen. Vita. CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Texas at El Paso, 2008. / Title from title screen. Vita. CD-ROM. Includes bibliographical references. Also available online.

Thesis (M.S.)--Florida State University, 2004. / Advisor: Dr. John C. Brigham, Florida State University, College of Arts and Sciences, Dept. of Psychology. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Jan. 12, 2005). Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wyoming, 2007. / Title from PDF title page (viewed on Dec. 1, 2008). Includes bibliographical references (p. 38-43).

After a crime has occurred, one of the most pressing objectives for investigators is to identify and interview any eyewitness that can provide information about the crime. Depending on his or her training, the investigative interviewer will use (to varying degrees) mostly yes/no questions, some cued and multiple-choice questions, with few open-ended questions. When the witness cannot generate any more details about the crime, one assumes the eyewitness’ memory for the critical event has been exhausted. However, given what we know about memory, is this a safe assumption? In line with the extant literature on human cognition, if one assumes (a) an eyewitness has more available memories of the crime than he or she has accessible and (b) only explicit probes have been used to elicit information, then one can argue this eyewitness may still be able to provide additional information via implicit memory tests. In accordance with these notions, the present study had two goals: demonstrate that (1) eyewitnesses can reveal memory implicitly for a detail-rich event and (2) particularly for brief crimes, eyewitnesses can reveal memory for event details implicitly that were inaccessible when probed for explicitly. Undergraduates (N = 227) participated in a psychological experiment in exchange for research credit. Participants were presented with one of three stimulus videos (brief crime vs. long crime vs. irrelevant video). Then, participants either completed a series of implicit memory tasks or worked on a puzzle for 5 minutes. Lastly, participants were interviewed explicitly about the previous video via free recall and recognition tasks. Findings indicated that participants who viewed the brief crime provided significantly more crime-related details implicitly than those who viewed the long crime. The data also showed participants who viewed the long crime provided marginally more accurate details during free recall than participants who viewed the brief crime. Furthermore, participants who completed the implicit memory tasks provided significantly less accurate information during the explicit interview than participants who were not given implicit memory tasks. This study was the first to investigate implicit memory for eyewitnesses of a crime. To determine its applied value, additional empirical work is required.

Basic research on expectancy effects suggests that investigative interviewers with pre-conceived notions about a crime may negatively influence the interview process in meaningful ways, yet many interviewing protocols recommend that interviewers review all available information prior to conducting their interviews. Previous research suggests that interviewers with no pre-interview knowledge elicit more detailed and accurate accounts than their informed counterparts (Cantlon, et al., 1996; Rivard et al., under review). The current study investigated whether (a) the benefit of blind versus informed interviewing is moderated by cautionary interviewer instructions to avoid suggestive questions and (b) whether any possible effects of pre-interview information extend beyond the immediate context of the forensic interview. Paired participants (N = 584) were assigned randomly either to the role of interviewer or witness. Witnesses viewed a mock crime video and were interviewed one week later by an interviewer who received either correct, incorrect, or no information about the crime event. Half of the interviewers were assigned randomly to receive additional instructions to avoid suggestive questions. All participants returned 1 week after the interview to recall the crime video (for the witness) or the information recalled by the witness during the interview (for the interviewer). All interviews and delayed recall measures were scored for the quantity and accuracy of information reported. Results replicate earlier findings that blind interviewers elicit more information from witnesses, without a decrease in accuracy rate. However instructions to avoid suggestive questions did not moderate the effect of blind versus informed interviewing on witness recall during the interview. Results further demonstrate that the effects of blind versus non-blind interviewing may extend beyond the immediate context of the interview to a later recall attempt. With instructions to avoid suggestive questions, witnesses of blind interviewers were more accurate than witnesses of incorrectly informed interviewers when recalling the event 1 week later. In addition, blind interviewers had more accurate memories for the witnesses’ account of the event during the interview compared to non-blind interviewers.