Effects of Emotion in Eyewitness Recall and Recognition

Effects of Emotion in Eyewitness repudiate and RecognitionAaron GlogowskiHouston, K. A., et al. (2013). The activated Eyewitness The Effectsof Emotion on Specific Aspects of Eyewitness Recall and Recognition Performance. Emotion, 13(1), 118-128. doi 10.1037/a0029220In the world of criminal science, at that place are several factors that can interfere with the accuracy of eyewitness reports. This article, by Kate Houston and her group, delves into the effects of emotion on eyewitness encounters. The main argument that they are looking at focuses on negative emotion enhancing primaeval retentivity while impairing the peripheral memory, where central memories are the main inside information that occurred, likely relating specifically to the action of the crime, and peripheral memories are the smaller details that were hap around the crime.Houston nones that in spite of all of the writings on eyewitness memory, actually few studies attempt to show a correlation in the midst o f it and memory. She goes on to hypothesize that negative correlations will indeed enhance the central memory of the event, further exploring details like the crime itself. In her observations of separate(a) studies however, she does note that high stress scenarios tended to cause subjects to forget details some the culprit of the situation, at least in the case of a precedent study on soldiers interrogations. In order to establish their hypotheses, Houston and her team act up deuce polar experimentations designed to adjudicate recall memory performance, as well as the participants ability to see the perpetrator of the crime, both associated with negative stimulated reception.In their first base experiment, the team hypothesized that a negative emotional response would support the participants to more easily describe details astir(predicate) the perpetrator. They ga on that pointd a participation group of 101 students from the University of Aberdeen (30 males 71 fema les) to engage in the study. They split the group into two subgroups. The group of 51 was shown a motion picture that was meant to become an emotional response, and the group of 50 was shown a video intended to adulterous a indifferent(p) response from the participants. Both videos used the same actors and scenarios up to the point in which the story deviates to the emotional induction. at once the participants had watched their respective videos, they were asked to execute a brief survey about how the video made them feel. They were disposed(p) several different emotions, as well as a apathetic I feel nothing option, and were asked to rank all of these emotions on a scale of 0-3 (0 being not at all, and 3 being very much). After they rated what they were feeling, the results were collected and the participants were presumption a 20 minute anticipate period in which they had to fill out a questionnaire on likes and dislikes, though this questionnaire was truly only present to provide a distraction for the attached part of the experiment. The participants were then asked to write down as m each details about the video that they could remember.In the results of the experiment, Houstons team discovered that the emotion-inducing video tended to cause much higher responses to negative emotions than the impersonal video did. They overly noticed that the group viewing the emotional video recalled the events of the emotional present import in much more clarity and complete detail than the neutral video control group, however, they could not recall details about the perpetrator as well. Their data also shows that there is not a meaningful correlation between the negative emotional responses and the amount of information given about the perpetrator and the critical moment. This data concludes that those experiencing negative emotions tended to focus their help directly on the perpetrator, however, there was no significant difference in their ability to describe the perpetrator when compared to the results from the neutral video control group. eyepatch the idea that focus is altered in a critical moment coincided with the evidence, the data could not refer any significant difference in memory and recall.The second experiment was designed to test whether or not negative emotions and stress impair the individuals ability to identify a perpetrator when they are presented with a series of options (in this case, a moving-picture show line-up). Houstons team used two separate scene line-ups for the experiment one in which the perpetrators photo was present, and another where the perpetrators photo had been replaced by one that looked very exchangeable to them. The team made sure to select alternates for the replacement photo ground on resemblance to the perpetrator according to a method recommended by the practice of law and Criminal Evidence Act used to identify criminals in the unite Kingdom.They split up a group of 233 partici pants into relatively even subgroups at the beginning of the study. They began the study in the same way as the first experiment two separate videos were shown, one emotional, one neutral, then the participants were asked about their emotional responses to the videos, and given time after the emotional response portion. Once the period after the emotional response survey had passed, the participants completed a recall survey about the videos, then they divided the groups again into two separate subgroups. One subgroup was shown the picture line-up containing the perpetrators image, while the other was shown the line-up with the face doubles image.The results of the second experiment confirmed the teams previous theories that the video was successful in eliciting an emotional response, and that emotional responses were similar to the previous experiment, based on their initial observations.The second set of findings turned out to be in accordance with the initial venture of the seco nd experiment. Participants who watched the emotional video were much more likely than those who watched the neutral video to incorrectly identify an innocent target as the perpetrator. near 25% of the time, participants in the group in which the perpetrators photo was included would claim that the perpetrators picture was not among those in the line-up. Those who saw the neutral video were much more likely to identify the real perpetrator (40.4% as opposed to 27.1% from the emotional video group). In the group in which the perpetrators photo was absent however, there appeared to be no significant correlation between emotional response and the answers given. The recall results for this experiment were very similar to the recall results for the first experiment.In collecting their results from the second experiment, Houstons team arrived at several finishs based on the data that had been collected. Their data further supported the idea that state exposed to negative emotional expe riences focused more on the perpetrator, tho less on the rest of the situation, but they no longer had any sense of improved environmental detail. They both however showed the same take aim of accuracy in describing the target. The photo line-up tests show very different results however, present that those exposed to negative emotional experiences would more likely identify the amiss(p) target when the targets picture appears along with others similar in appearance and features to them. When the target was not shown however, the emotional video groups tended to have similar results to those in the neutral video group.In the teams conclusion to their article, they discussed the probable reasoning behind the discrepancies in their experimental results. They note that the environmental results differ between the experiments, showing that it may be unreliable. The data as a whole shows that negative emotional responses may have different results on eyewitness testimony, depending on the situation.