Abstract
This study is a laboratory analogue investigation of variables that impinge upon the recall of detail about a simulated act of armed robbery among “eyewitnesses.” Specifically, this study sought to determine (1) whether recall of detail by Ss who watch the videotape of a simulated “armed robbery” taken by surveillance camera in a “convenience” store varies according to (a) the dress and appearance of the presumed “robber,” (b) the gender of the victim of the “robbery,” and/or (c) the gender of the “eyewitness”; and (2) whether such recall varies according to S’s inventoried psychological “needs.” Ss viewed the videotape of the simulated robbery under one of four conditions representing variations in the dress and appearance (“status”) of the alleged offender and the gender of the alleged victim; completed the Personality Adjective Inventory; and responded to a questionnaire concerning details of the alleged offense. Results indicate that the single statistically significant source of variance in accuracy of recall of detail is the experimentally manipulated “status” of the perpetrator; gender of victim and of subject contribute significantly neither in isolation nor in interaction. Inventoried psychological needs for “autonomy” and “change” are significantly but negatively and weakly correlated with accuracy among women Ss, while “change” alone is so correlated among men Ss. Findings are interpreted in accordance with theory and research in experimental social psychology and psychological criminology bearing upon person perception and role expectancy in relation to behavioral stereotypes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Abrams, D., Wetherall, M., Cochrane, S. Hogg, M.A., &Turner, J.C. (1990). Knowing what to think by knowing who you are: Self-categorization and the nature of norm formation, and group polarization. British Journal of Social Psychology, 20,97–119.
Asch, S.E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193,31–55.
Asch, S.E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70,416.
Bern, D.J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of the cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74,183–200.
Borchard, E. (1932). Convicting the innocent: Errors of criminal justice. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bornstein, B.H. & Zickafoose, DJ. (1999). “I know I know it, I know I saw it”: The stability of the confidence-accuracy relationship across domains. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 5, 76–88.
Brandon, R. & Davies, C. (1973). Wrongful imprisonment. London: Allen & Unwin.
Buckhout, R. (1974). Eyewitness testimony. Scientific American, 231,23–31.
Bull, R., & Clifford, B. (1979). Eyewitness memory. In Applied Problems in Memory. In Gruneberg, M., & Morris, P. (Eds.). London: Academic Press.
Campbell, J.D., Tesser, A., & Fairey, P.J. (1986). Conformity and attention to stimulus: Some temporal and contextual dynamics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51,315–324.
Christianson, S. (1992). Emotional stress and eyewitness memory: A critical review. Psychological Bulletin, 112,284–309.
Crutchfield, R.S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10,191–198.
Deffenbacher, K.A.. (1991). A maturing of research on the behavior of eyewitnesses. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 5,377–402.
Driskell, J.E., & Mullen, B. (1990). Status, expectations, and behavior: A meta-analytic review and test of the theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16,541–553.
Dunning, D., & Stern, L.B. (1994). Distinguishing accurate from inaccurate eyewitness identification via inquiries about decision processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 818–835.
Eagley, A.H. (1978). Sex differences in influenceability. Psychological Bulletin, 85,86–116.
Feldman, R.S. (1998). Social Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Festinger, L. (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Frank, J., & Frank, B. (1957). Not guilty. London: Gallancz.
Gruber, H.E. (1990). The legacy of Solomon Asch: Essays in cognition and social psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hartley, E.L., Maccoby, E.E., & Newcomb, T.M. (1958). Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Hosch, H. (1994). Individual differences in personality and eyewitness identification. In D. Ross, D. Read, & M. Toglia (Eds.). Adult eyewitness testimony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Huff, R., Rattner, A., & Sagarin, E. (1986). Guilty until proven innocent. Crime and Delinquency, 32, 518–544.
Kassin, S.M., Ellsworth, P.C., & Smith, V.L. (1989). The “general acceptance” of psychological research on eyewitness testimony. American Psychologist, 44, 1089–1098.
Kramer, T.H., Buckhout, R., & Eugenio, P. (1990). Weapon focus, arousal, and eyewitness memory. Law and Human Behavior, 14,167–184.
Leippe, M.R., Wells, G.L., & Ostrom, T.M. (1978). Crime seriousness as a determinant of accuracy in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,345–351.
Lichtenstein, S., Fischhoff, B., & Phillips, L. (1982). Calibration of probabilities: The state of the art to 1980. In D. Kahneman, P. Slovic, & A. Tversky (Eds.). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, R.C.L. (1994). Expectations of eyewitness performance: Jurors' verdicts do not follow from their beliefs. In D.F. Ross, J.D. Read, & M.P. Toglia (Eds.), Adult eyewitness testimony; Current trends and developments. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay, R.C.L., Lea, J.A., & Fulford, J.A. (1991). Sequential lineup presentation: Technique matters. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76,741–745.
Loftus, E.F. (1975). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 7,560–572.
Loftus, E.F., Loftus, G.R., & Meso, J. (1987). Some facts about “weapon focus.” Law and Human Behavior, 11,55–62.
Loftus, E.F., Powers, P.A., & Andriks, J.L. (1979). Eyewitness accounts of females and males. Journal of Applied Psychology, 64,339–347.
Milgram, S. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378.
Munsterberg, H. (1907). On the witness stand: Essays on psychology and crime. New York: Doubleday.
Pallone, N.J., & Hennessy, J.J. (1992, 1996). Criminal behavior: A process psychology analysis. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Phillips, M.R., McAuliff, B.D., Kovera, M.B., & Cutler, B.L. (1999). Double-blind photoarray administration as a safeguard against investigator bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84,940–951.
Schacter, D.L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182–203.
Shaw, J.S., McClure, K.A., Garcia, L.A. (1999). A lay perspective on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,52–71.
Sherif, M. (1936). The Psychology of Social Norms. New York: Harper & Row.
Smith, V., Kassin, S., & Ellsworth, P. (1989). Eyewitness accuracy and confidence: Within-versus-between-subjects correlations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,356–359.
Sporer, S.L. (1993). Eyewitness identification accuracy, confidence, and decision times in simultaneous and sequential lineups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,22–33.
Sporer, S.L., Penrod, S., Read, D., & Culter, B. (1995). Choosing, confidence, and accuracy: A metaanalysis of the confidence-accuracy relation in eyewitness identification studies. Psychological Bulletin, 118,315–327.
Wells, G. L. 2000. Psychology, law, and eyewitness identification. In Psychological Expertise and Criminal Justice. Washington: American Psychological Association.
Wells, G.L., & Lindsay, R.C.L. (1985). Methodological notes on the accuracy-confidence relation in eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70,413–419.
Wells, G.L., & Bradfield, A.L. (1999). Distortions in eyewitnesses' recollections: Can the post-identification-feedback effect be moderated? Psychological Science, 10,138–144.
Wells, G.L., Malpass, R.S., Lindsay, R.C.L., Fisher, R.P., Turtle, J.W., & Fulero, S.M. 2000. From the lab to the police station: A successful application of eyewitness research. American Psychologist, 55, 6, 581–598.
Yarmey, A.D., & Jones, H.P.T. (1983). Is the psychology of eyewitness identification a matter of common sense? In S. Lloyd-Bostock & B.R. Clifford (Eds.), Evaluating witness evidence. Recent psychological research and new perspectives. London: Wiley
Yarmey, A.D., & Morris, S. (1998). The effects of discussion on eyewitness memory. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,1637–1648.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported in part through the Henry Rutgers Scholars Program at Rutgers College of Rutgers-The State University of New Jersey. The authors express their gratitude to Charles Rouse, Steven Gaynor, April Hayes, Erica Gross, Shawn Kimble, Elizabeth Chen, and Stephanie Bonn; Officer Leroy Washington, Rutgers University Police; and most particularly to Dipak Munsaf, proprietor of Krauszer's Food Store in the sixth ward of the city of New Brunswick.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Butler, M.A., Pallone, N.J. Accuracy of recall among “eyewitnesses” to a simulated robbery: Intrapersonal and stimulus determinants. Curr Psychol 21, 253–264 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1017-8
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-002-1017-8