POZZULO STUDY

Aim, Background, Research Method

100

What was the aim of the study?

• To investigate whether false identifications in target-absent lineups are more influenced by social pressures rather than cognitive abilities.
• Investigating correct and false positive responses in relation to target familiarity

200

What type of experiment is this? And where was it conducted?

Laboratory Experiment conducted in Canada

300

What was the Research Design? IV and DV?

Independent measures (children vs. adults) and Repeated measures (target absent/present & cartoons/humans)

IV: Children/Adults, Nature of Target Faces, Type of Line-Up

DV: Correct identification, Correct rejection

400

What was the psychology being investigated?

Eyewitness identification and the influence of social versus cognitive factors on decision-making

500

What is the background of the study?

Developmental Psychology and Cognitive Psychology

Eyewitness Identification Procedures

Sample

100

How many participants in Group 1? Gender? Age?

59 children in kindergarten

Ages 4-7

21 females and 38 males

200

How many participants in Group 2? Gender? Age?

53 adults

Ages 17 – 30

36 females and 17 males

300

How many total participants?

112

400

Where were Group 1 participants recruited from?

3 private schools in Eastern Ontario, Canada

500

Where were Group 2 participants recruited from?

Eastern Ontario, University

Materials and Procedures

100

Describe the Human video and photo arrays

• Two Caucasian university students, each 22 years old, one male and one female
• Filmed completing everyday task (female = brushing hair in her bathroom; male = putting on coat and exiting his home)
• Colored 6 second clip; with each video showing a 2-3 second close-up of individual’s face
• For the photographs, the two human ‘targets’ were photographed in a different outfit than what was worn during the video clip.
• Target-present lineups contained the target and 3 foils, whereas target-absent lineups contained 4 foils
• Photos in black and white, only showed face, neck and top of shoulders, foils similar appearance to target.
• 4 foils are chosen by 3 raters

200

Describe the Cartoon video and photo arrays

• 6 second video clips of each were used
• One clip = Dora talking to an audience
• Other clip = Diego putting on a pair of gloves
• Each video provided a 2-3 second close up of each character’s face
• Colored and muted
• Target-present lineups contained the target and 3 foils, whereas target-absent lineups contained 4 foils
• 4 foils chosen by 3 raters, basis of similarity to target on appearance

300

What were the participants instructed to do?

Please look at the photos. If you see the culprit, please point at their photo. If you do not see the culprit, please point here (silhouette).

400

Describe the procedures for the children

• Parents were given the consent & demographic cartoon watching form to sign.
• 3 researchers & a facilitators visited the schools; children were invited to participate in experiment about watching TV and video games (deception) but told they would not get in trouble if they decided to leave
• Researchers played with the children before starting
•  Researchers told children to pay attention to each clip as they would be asked some questions after each clip, experimenter asks open ended questions (What did you see?)
• Child is read instructions for lineup
• Experimenter displays line up on a 13-inch laptop to the child
• Process is repeated for each clip
• Once study is complete, the child is thanked for participating and receives a coloring book as a gift

500

Describe the procedures for the adults

• Each adult received a consent form to sign
• Adults were told they would be investigating memory and watching video clips (deception)
• Adults were told to pay attention as they would be asked questions (same as kids)
• After the clip, a sheet was given asking free recall questions (same questions asked to children)
• Lineups were displayed upon finishing the response (same instruction script was read)
• Entire process repeated for each clip
• Once study was complete, adults were debriefed and thanked (no gift was given)

Results and Conclusions

100

What did the adults do better in?

Adults did better in target-present human lineup and in target-absent human/cartoon lineup

200

What is the conclusion of the study?

Children are likely to make errors in target-absent lineups due to social demands to make a selection rather than a faulty memory.

300

SURPRISE!

What are the main assumptions of the cognitive approach?

• Information is processed through the same route in all humans: input-process-output, in a way similar to how information is processed by a computer.
• People have individual differences in their cognitive processing, such as attention, language, thinking and memory. This process can help to explain behavior and emotion.

400

Explain the results of the children

Target-present human: 23% correct identification

Target-present cartoon: 99% correct identification

Target-absent human: 45% correct rejection of foil

Target-absent cartoon: 74% correct rejection of foil

500

Explain the results of the adults

Target-present human: 66% correct identification

Target-present cartoon: 95% correct identification

Target-absent human: 70% correct rejection of foil

Target-absent cartoon: 94% correct rejection of foil

Strengths and Weaknesses

100

One strength in Ethics and One weakness

Strength:

Consent obtained

Participants debriefed

Weakness:

Small deception about study’s aim

200

One strength in Generalizability and One weakness.

Strength:

Use of children and adults

Wide age range

Weakness:

All from Ontario, Canada

300

One strength in Applicability and One weakness

Strength:

Used to modify and adapt way of child interrogation

Weakness:

Depends on children and/or adults state after crime

400

One strength in Validity and One weakness.

Strength:

High levels of control

Counterbalancing

Weakness:

Low ecological validity

500

One strength in Reliability and One weakness.

Strength:

Lab experiment

Highly standardized

High levels of control

Weakness:

Low mundane realism

Risk or order, practice, fatigue effect