Der Lieben
08-03-2005, 08:43
This is summary I just wrote of a presentation in our Honors Forum class. I just wrote it, so its bound to have copius amounts of errors, but I thnk it ought to spark some interesting conversation. (Oh and if you see any glaring errors, could you kindly point them out ;) ).
Conviction at First Sight?
On February 1st, Dr. Jeffrey Neuschatz gave a presentation to the Honors Forum entitled “The Mediating Effects of Suspicion on Post-Identification Feedback.” In this presentation, Dr. Neuschatz outlined all the psychological pitfalls in creating fair police line-ups and focused specifically on his field of research, post-identification feedback. Dr. Neuschatz is an associate professor of Psychology at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He holds a BS degree in Psychology, an MS degree in Experimental Psychology, and a PhD in Cognitive Psychology. He has also taken part in psychological publications too numerous to list. Clearly, he is highly qualified to give this presentation.
Dr. Neuschatz started off by explaining that even though eyewitness testimony is often the most persuasive, it is also one the most unreliable forms of evidence. To prove underline this statement, he cited the Innocence Project, in which, out of 132 cases of DNA overturned convictions, 2/3 of the individuals were originally convicted due to erroneous eyewitness testimony. The source of these problems, he said, was that the line-ups were either poorly constructed, or the eyewitnesses just remembered incorrectly.
Dr. Neuschatz then postulated that these erroneous memories were often times made stronger (or weaker) in the time between the line-up and the court case, due to an effect that he named Post-Identification Feedback. Post-Identification Feedback is when people receive outside opinions about their choice in a line-up procedure after the line-up has been completed To prove this, he started off by citing two studies in this field. The first study he mentioned was the Luus and Wells study. The results of this study suggested that, after witnesses conferred with each other following the line-up, the people who talked with others who chose the same person were seemingly more reliable and persuasive on the witness stand. The second study Dr. Neuschatz referred to was the Wells and Bradford study. This particular study gave negative feedback to participants as well as positive. Once again, the people who had their choice confirmed delivered a much more convincing testimony. This, Dr. Neuschatz said, was because the persuasiveness and reliability of a witness are often judged by the witness confidence, their view of the crime, and attention at the time of the act. He then went on to theorize that positive Post-Identification Feedback gives a witness a greater sense of all these things.
Next, Dr. Neuschatz presented several slides containing data from his own research into the matter. Like the others studies, he had found the positive and negative Post-Identification feedback had a very big effect on a witness’ reliability. His data also verified his theory that the positive feedback gave people a greater sense of confidence, as well a changing their opinion on how well they saw the perpetrator (on film) and how well they were paying attention. He also found that when a suspicion of being manipulated is introduced to the witness, that they tend to question themselves more and try to verify their choice. Dr. Neuschatz proposed that this suspicion could be used in the court system to lower the effects of positive Post-Identification feedback.
Overall, I thought Dr. Neuschatz’s presentation was very effective; his data entirely convinced me of the negative effects of Post-Identification Feedback. I also thought that his idea of introducing suspicion to the witnesses was good, as well, though I believe that this would have to be done carefully or the scales might tip too far in favor of the defendant. I felt that this presentation really enlightened me to the fact that our legal system, though fairly good, has its flaws. Since being informed is a part of being a postive contributer to society, I thoroughly enjoy this presentation; furthermore, I hope that the Honors Forum will see fit to have Dr. Neuschatz back when he completes his research.
Edit: dang paragraphs didn't hold with the copy and paste, sorry guys.
Conviction at First Sight?
On February 1st, Dr. Jeffrey Neuschatz gave a presentation to the Honors Forum entitled “The Mediating Effects of Suspicion on Post-Identification Feedback.” In this presentation, Dr. Neuschatz outlined all the psychological pitfalls in creating fair police line-ups and focused specifically on his field of research, post-identification feedback. Dr. Neuschatz is an associate professor of Psychology at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. He holds a BS degree in Psychology, an MS degree in Experimental Psychology, and a PhD in Cognitive Psychology. He has also taken part in psychological publications too numerous to list. Clearly, he is highly qualified to give this presentation.
Dr. Neuschatz started off by explaining that even though eyewitness testimony is often the most persuasive, it is also one the most unreliable forms of evidence. To prove underline this statement, he cited the Innocence Project, in which, out of 132 cases of DNA overturned convictions, 2/3 of the individuals were originally convicted due to erroneous eyewitness testimony. The source of these problems, he said, was that the line-ups were either poorly constructed, or the eyewitnesses just remembered incorrectly.
Dr. Neuschatz then postulated that these erroneous memories were often times made stronger (or weaker) in the time between the line-up and the court case, due to an effect that he named Post-Identification Feedback. Post-Identification Feedback is when people receive outside opinions about their choice in a line-up procedure after the line-up has been completed To prove this, he started off by citing two studies in this field. The first study he mentioned was the Luus and Wells study. The results of this study suggested that, after witnesses conferred with each other following the line-up, the people who talked with others who chose the same person were seemingly more reliable and persuasive on the witness stand. The second study Dr. Neuschatz referred to was the Wells and Bradford study. This particular study gave negative feedback to participants as well as positive. Once again, the people who had their choice confirmed delivered a much more convincing testimony. This, Dr. Neuschatz said, was because the persuasiveness and reliability of a witness are often judged by the witness confidence, their view of the crime, and attention at the time of the act. He then went on to theorize that positive Post-Identification Feedback gives a witness a greater sense of all these things.
Next, Dr. Neuschatz presented several slides containing data from his own research into the matter. Like the others studies, he had found the positive and negative Post-Identification feedback had a very big effect on a witness’ reliability. His data also verified his theory that the positive feedback gave people a greater sense of confidence, as well a changing their opinion on how well they saw the perpetrator (on film) and how well they were paying attention. He also found that when a suspicion of being manipulated is introduced to the witness, that they tend to question themselves more and try to verify their choice. Dr. Neuschatz proposed that this suspicion could be used in the court system to lower the effects of positive Post-Identification feedback.
Overall, I thought Dr. Neuschatz’s presentation was very effective; his data entirely convinced me of the negative effects of Post-Identification Feedback. I also thought that his idea of introducing suspicion to the witnesses was good, as well, though I believe that this would have to be done carefully or the scales might tip too far in favor of the defendant. I felt that this presentation really enlightened me to the fact that our legal system, though fairly good, has its flaws. Since being informed is a part of being a postive contributer to society, I thoroughly enjoy this presentation; furthermore, I hope that the Honors Forum will see fit to have Dr. Neuschatz back when he completes his research.
Edit: dang paragraphs didn't hold with the copy and paste, sorry guys.