Kathy Pezdek - US grants

Pezdek
SES 991909




This research builds upon a substantial research literature in cognitive psychology on the suggestive effects of "post-event information." It is hypothesized that eyewitness memory in a police line-up, will be affected by such information, leading to certain false positive identifications. The project here is to investigate the conditions under which viewing an intervening lineup is likely to reduce the accuracy of eyewitness memory on a subsequent lineup. There are four experiments using four forensically relevant factors known to relate to memory trace strength: own-race versus cross-race faces, initial exposure time to the target face, retention interval, and age of suspects. The long-term goal of this research is to contribute to the development of theories of memory and explore the dimensions of suggestibility in the every-day setting of police work and courts of law.

This research examines the utility of several validity assessment techniques for differentiating between children's accounts of true and false events. Several techniques have been developed to assess the validity of people's accounts of events, however most of these techniques (a) have been developed for use with adults and not children, (b) have not been extensively tested with children, and (c) do not incorporate relevant principles of cognitive development. This project tests the hypothesis that with children, validity assessment techniques are more successful at discriminating between accounts of familiar versus unfamiliar events than between accounts of true versus false events. Two studies will be conducted to test the utility of several validity assessment techniques for discriminating between true and false events with events that are familiar or unfamiliar to children. In the first study the event recalled is one experimentally introduced to the participants. In the second study the event recalled is a forensically relevant one -- a stressful and invasive medical procedure that has been experienced by each participating child or not. This research will contribute to the development of theories of cognitive development that apply to a wide range of memory tasks that operate during every-day cognition. More immediately, the proposed research will help researchers, legal professionals, and social service agents discriminate between children's accounts of real-world events that did occur versus those that did not occur.

PI and Co-PI: Kathy Pezdek and Kathryn Sperry

Title: Doctoral Dissertation Research: No Guts, No Glory: Eyewitness Credibility, Crime, and the U.S. Courts

0752519

Project Abstract

This research will examine whether jurors perceive eyewitnesses who testify against a gang member as acting against their self-interest, and does this perceived self-interest inflate jurors interpretations of eyewitness credibility? To answer this question, undergraduate students will be asked to read a trial transcript, in which the level of threat (i.e., self-interest) experienced by the eyewitness is manipulated. The dependant measures are the credibility of the eyewitness and the final verdict. Specifically, the research addresses whether the relationship between the risk in testifying and inflated credibility is mitigated if the risk is perceived to be short-term? This construct will be manipulated by addressing whether or not the witness is moving away from the gang territory after the trial. It is hypothesized that if the risk is perceived to be temporary, the credibility will not be inflated. Experiment 1 tests whether a witness who is perceived as testifying at a risk, thereby going against self-interest, will receive higher ratings of credibility. Further, does the inflated credibility lead to more guilty verdicts? In this experiment, "self interest" is manipulated by whether or not the eyewitness has been threatened for testifying in a gang case. Experiment 2 addresses a possible mediating variable on the above relationship. The proposed program of research addresses an extremely relevant issue in our legal system given the court's inconsistency regarding whether to admit gang evidence at trial. The theory of self-interest also could be used to understand how jurors' perceive highly paid expert witnesses, jailhouse snitches, and alibi witnesses. This understanding could help the courts guard against potential miscarriages of justice in our legal system.