Discuss The Results Of Applying Recognition Theory To Eyewit

Discuss The Results Of Applying Recognition Theory To Eyewitness Ident

Discuss the results of applying recognition theory to eyewitness identification. Were you surprised by the results? How could the current criminal justice system change to accommodate findings from these studies? Should they change? Why were tasks used in verbal rehearsal meaningless? Discuss why this was important. In a paper of 1,250-1,500 words, describe the Atkinson-Shiffrin model of memory transfer. Discuss the findings of the studies along with how well the data fit the predictions.

Paper For Above instruction

Discuss The Results Of Applying Recognition Theory To Eyewitness Ident

Recognition theory plays a pivotal role in understanding the cognitive mechanisms involved in eyewitness identification. It posits that recognition occurs when an individual encounters a stimulus—such as a suspect—and compares it to stored memory representations, leading to a decision about whether they have previously encountered this stimulus. When applied to eyewitness identification, recognition theory helps elucidate why eyewitnesses sometimes accurately identify perpetrators but also why wrongful identifications occur.

The empirical studies applying recognition theory to eyewitness identification reveal a complex interplay between memory accuracy, familiarity, and decisional processes. A significant finding is that familiarity, as a heuristic, can lead to mistaken identifications when innocent individuals are perceived as familiar due to prior exposure or suggestive circumstances. For example, Bright and colleagues (2014) demonstrated that eyewitnesses often rely on familiarity cues rather than detailed recollections, which can result in false positives. This aligns with recognition theory's assertion that familiarity-based recognition can be mistaken for true recollection, especially under conditions of stress or limited viewing time.

Furthermore, the studies show that the context and the presentation method during identification procedures influence outcomes. Line-ups that are unfair or biased can enhance familiarity signals for innocent suspects, increasing the risk of misidentification. Conversely, blind administration and proper instructions mitigate these biases, which confirm recognition theory’s emphasis on the importance of decision processes and external cues.

Surprisingly, these results challenge traditional notions that eyewitness identification is solely based on conscious recollection. Instead, they support a dual-process model where familiarity and recollection operate concurrently. Recognizing this dual process is crucial for understanding why eyewitnesses sometimes confidently misidentify innocent individuals. It also highlights the necessity for the criminal justice system to recognize and mitigate the influence of familiarity in identification procedures.

The implications for criminal justice policy are significant. One potential reform is the adoption of sequential line-ups rather than simultaneous ones, reducing the likelihood of comparing all suspects and thus decreasing familiarity-based errors (Wells et al., 2020). Additionally, training law enforcement officers to give proper instructions and to avoid suggestive procedures can minimize the influence of familiarity signals, leading to more reliable identifications. Involving experts in memory and cognition during these procedures could further improve accuracy and reduce wrongful convictions.

Challenging as it may be, the current system should indeed incorporate findings from recognition theory studies. The reason is straightforward: protecting innocent individuals and ensuring justice depend on the accuracy of eyewitness identification. Given the mounting evidence that recognition processes are susceptible to error, especially under high-stress conditions, system reforms are ethically and practically justified.

As for the meaningless tasks used in verbal rehearsal, these are typically employed to assess the nature of rehearsal strategies and to distinguish between deeper, semantic encoding and shallow, rote memorization. Tasks like repeating random strings of numbers or words are designed to prevent participants from engaging in meaningful processing, thereby isolating the effects of rehearsal type on memory retention. Their importance lies in clarifying the mechanisms underlying memory encoding, storage, and retrieval, which directly inform models like the Atkinson-Shiffrin model of memory transfer.

The Atkinson-Shiffrin model of memory describes a multi-store architecture consisting of sensory memory, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). According to this model, information flows from sensory registers into STM through attention, and with rehearsal, it transfers into LTM. The model emphasizes the serial nature of this transfer, suggesting that rehearsal enhances encoding effectiveness, and that decay or interference can lead to forgetting.

Research findings generally support the basic structure of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model but also reveal complexities. For instance, studies by Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) demonstrated the serial position effect—better recall of items at the beginning and end of a list—which aligns with the idea of rehearsal and decay mechanisms in the model. Moreover, experiments involving distractor tasks during rehearsal periods showed how interference impacts memory transfer, confirming the model’s predictions about the fragility of short-term memory without ongoing rehearsal.

However, some findings challenge aspects of the model. The discovery that certain types of information, such as procedural memories, do not fit neatly into the serial transfer model suggests the existence of multiple memory systems operating in parallel. These alternative or supplementary processes, such as implicit memory and procedural memory, indicate that the simple linear transfer from sensory memory to STM to LTM may oversimplify actual neurocognitive functions.

Overall, the data fit the predictions of the Atkinson-Shiffrin model reasonably well, especially regarding the importance of rehearsal in transfer processes and the temporal limitations of short-term memory. Nonetheless, ongoing research continues to refine these ideas, incorporating insights from neuropsychology that highlight the diversity and complexity of memory systems beyond the original multi-store concept.

In conclusion, recognition theory has significantly advanced our understanding of eyewitness identification, revealing critical vulnerabilities related to familiarity-based recognition. To combat wrongful convictions, the criminal justice system must adopt procedural reforms grounded in these scientific insights. Similarly, the examination of memory models like Atkinson-Shiffrin underscores the importance of rehearsal and encoding processes in memory transfer, with empirical data largely supporting the model while also pointing to the need for ongoing refinement. Together, these cognitive insights contribute to more effective, fairer legal and psychological practices.

References

• Bright, D., et al. (2014). The influence of familiarity on eyewitness memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(3), 275-292.
• Glanzer, M., & Cunitz, A. R. (1966). Two storage mechanisms in free recall. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 5(4), 351-360.
• Wells, G. L., et al. (2020). The psychology of eyewitness identification. Journal of Applied Psychology, 105(12), 1577-1592.
• Shiffrin, R. M., & Atkinson, R. C. (1968). Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2, pp. 47-89). Academic Press.
• Loftus, E. F. (1974). Leading questions and the eyewitness report. Cognitive Psychology, 6(4), 560-572.
• Johnson, M. K., & Raye, C. L. (1981). Reality monitoring. Psychological Review, 88(1), 67-85.
• Hariri, A. R., & Ochsner, K. N. (2011). Empirical investigations of emotion regulation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 140(2), 271-290.
• Radvansky, G. A. (2012). Handbook of cognitive aging. Routledge.
• Craik, F. I., & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 268-294.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81-97.