MODES OF PRESENTATION, POST-EVENT INFORMATION, EVENT EMOTIONALITY AND GENDER AFFECTING THE EYEWITNESS ACCURACY   Ari Sudan...
EYEWITNESS MEMORY <ul><li>Nature of Eyewitness Memory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Murder, shootout, brutal assault, robbery, acc...
FACTORS AFFECTING EYEWITNESS   MEMORY ACCURACY <ul><li>Post-event information-  Misinformation effect </li></ul><ul><li>St...
EXPERIMENT-1 <ul><li>Subjects:   120 students of U.G. and P.G. classes, aged 18 to 25 years (60 males, M=23 years and 2 mo...
Table 2:   Treatment Level-wise Mean Memory Scores and SDs TREATMENT LEVELS MEMORY  SCORES MEAN SDs A  Types of Post-Event...
Table 3:   Summary of 3    2    2 Factorial Analysis of Variance for Memory Scores Source of Variation SS df MSS F p  Le...
 
 
 
EXPERIMENT-2 <ul><li>Subjects:   60 students of Under Graduate and Post Graduate classes, aged 18 to 25 years (30 males, M...
Table 5:  Treatment Level-wise Mean Memory Scores and SDs. TREATMENT LEVELS MEMORY SCORES MEAN SD A  Types of Post-Event I...
Table 6:  Summary of 3    2    2 Mixed Factorial Analysis  of Variance for Memory Scores. Source of Variation SS df MSS ...
 
Conclusions <ul><li>Misleading post-event information leads to poor eyewitness memory retention  </li></ul><ul><li>(Misinf...
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Eyewitness memory

1,724

Published on

MODES OF PRESENTATION, POST-EVENT INFORMATION, EVENT EMOTIONALITY AND GENDER AFFECTING THE EYEWITNESS ACCURACY

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,724
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
9
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Eyewitness memory

  1. 1. MODES OF PRESENTATION, POST-EVENT INFORMATION, EVENT EMOTIONALITY AND GENDER AFFECTING THE EYEWITNESS ACCURACY Ari Sudan Tiwari and Chandra Bhal Dwivedi Department of Psychology Banaras Hindu University Varanasi-221005
  2. 2. EYEWITNESS MEMORY <ul><li>Nature of Eyewitness Memory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Murder, shootout, brutal assault, robbery, accidents, etc. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emotional, stressful and arousal inducing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reconstructive process </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>High suggestibility </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fragile in nature- very high level of inaccuracy </li></ul></ul>
  3. 3. FACTORS AFFECTING EYEWITNESS MEMORY ACCURACY <ul><li>Post-event information- Misinformation effect </li></ul><ul><li>Stress and arousal- Cue-utilizing hypothesis and weapon focusing </li></ul><ul><li>Personality type- Introversion </li></ul><ul><li>Gender- Females </li></ul><ul><li>Age- Younger children </li></ul><ul><li>Time interval- Reconstruction and retrieval induced forgetting </li></ul>
  4. 4. EXPERIMENT-1 <ul><li>Subjects: 120 students of U.G. and P.G. classes, aged 18 to 25 years (60 males, M=23 years and 2 months and 60 females, M=22 years and 8 months). </li></ul><ul><li>Materials: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Witnessed event in two modes of presentation: One was staged and the other was its video recorded clip. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. A memory test consisting 20 items regarding details of the event. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design: 3 (Consistent, Misleading and No Post-event Information)x2 (Staged Event and Video Clipped Event)x2 (Males and Females) factorial design . </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure: </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-1 . Exposure to the witnessed event. Phase-2 . Introduction of post-event information. Phase-3 . Memory test. </li></ul>Method
  5. 5. Table 2: Treatment Level-wise Mean Memory Scores and SDs TREATMENT LEVELS MEMORY SCORES MEAN SDs A Types of Post-Event Information 1. Consistent 15.70 2.03 2. Misleading 5.35 1.59 3. No 8.65 3.02 B Modes of Event Presentation 1. Staged Event 9.43 5.40 2. Video Clipped Event 10.37 4.33 C Gender 1. Males 10.03 4.10 2. Females 9.77 5.61
  6. 6. Table 3: Summary of 3  2  2 Factorial Analysis of Variance for Memory Scores Source of Variation SS df MSS F p Level of Significance A (Types of Post-Event Information) 2236.20 2 1118.10 414.68 .0001 B ( Modes of Event Presentation) 26.13 1 26.13 9.69 .002 C (Gender) 2.13 1 2.13 0.79 .376 A  B 54.87 2 27.43 10.17 .0001 B  C 128.13 1 128.13 47.52 .0001 A  C 78.87 2 39.43 14.63 .0001 A  B  C 33.27 2 16.63 6.17 .003 Within Treatments (Error) 291.20 108 2.70 Total 2850.80 119
  7. 10. EXPERIMENT-2 <ul><li>Subjects: 60 students of Under Graduate and Post Graduate classes, aged 18 to 25 years (30 males, M=22 years and 5 months and 30 females, M=22 years and 11 months) </li></ul><ul><li>Materials: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1. Witnessed events of two emotionality, one of pleasant emotion and another of unpleasant emotion. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2. Two memory tests consisting 20 items regarding details of the two events. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design: 3 (Consistent, Misleading and No Post-Event Information)  2 (Males and Females)  2 (Event of Pleasant and Unpleasant emotion) mixed factorial. </li></ul><ul><li>Procedure: </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-1. Exposure to the witness event. </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-2. Introduction of post-event information. </li></ul><ul><li>Phase-3. Memory test. </li></ul>Method
  8. 11. Table 5: Treatment Level-wise Mean Memory Scores and SDs. TREATMENT LEVELS MEMORY SCORES MEAN SD A Types of Post-Event Information 1. Consistent 15.90 1.92 2. Misleading 7.95 2.28 3. No 10.48 1.72 B Gender 1. Males 11.13 3.57 2. Females 11.75 4.15 C Event Emotionality 1. Pleasant 12.38 3.66 2. Unpleasant 10.50 3.87
  9. 12. Table 6: Summary of 3  2  2 Mixed Factorial Analysis of Variance for Memory Scores. Source of Variation SS df MSS F p Level of Significance Between SS 1513.10 59 A (Types of Post-Event Information) 1320.12 2 660.0585 218.35 .0001 B (Gender) 11.41 1 11.408 3.77 .057 A  B 18.32 2 9.1585 3.03 .057 Ss Within groups (Error I) 163.25 54 3.023 Within SS 268.50 60 C (Event Emotionality) 106.41 1 106.408 45.28 .0001 A  C 30.02 2 15.0085 6.34 .0001 B  C 0.41 1 0.408 0.17 .678 A  B  C 4.82 2 2.4085 1.04 .366 C x Ss within groups (Error II) 126.85 54 2.35 Total 1781.59 119
  10. 14. Conclusions <ul><li>Misleading post-event information leads to poor eyewitness memory retention </li></ul><ul><li>(Misinformation effect) </li></ul><ul><li>Subjects exposed to staged event and unpleasant event show higher level of suggestibility to post-event information </li></ul><ul><li>(Cue-utilizing hypothesis and weapon focusing) </li></ul><ul><li>Females were more susceptible to accept post-event information about the staged event than the video-clipped event in comparison to males </li></ul><ul><li>(Gender related eyewitness tasks in Indian social setting) </li></ul>
  1. Gostou de algum slide específico?

    Recortar slides é uma maneira fácil de colecionar informações para acessar mais tarde.

×