The Impact of Attention on Eyewitness Identification and Change Blindness

Noelle Sammon; John Bogue

doi:10.5334/jeps.db

The Impact of Attention on Eyewitness Identification and Change Blindness

Journal of European Psychology Students

Volume 6 (2015): Issue 2

By: Noelle Sammon and John Bogue

Open Access

|Aug 2015

Abstract

The current study investigated whether differences exist in eyewitness identification and change blindness when manipulating attention. 126 undergraduate students were randomly assigned to either a full or divided attention group. Level of attention was found to be a significant predictor for accurate identification, χ2 (3, N = 126) = 1947, p < .001. Additionally, there was a significant between-group difference on correct recall, t (115.46) = 4.24, p < .001, and self-reported confidence in responses given, t (124) = 3.62, p < .001. Level of attention was a non-significant predictor of participants’ detection of change (two-tailed Fisher exact p = .058). Results indicate that level of attention impacts on accurate eyewitness identification.

References

Citizens Information Identification of a suspect 2008 Retrieved November 5, 2011, from http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/arrests/identification_of_a_suspect.html
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cohen J. A power primer Psychological Bulletin 1992 112 155 159 10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Connors E. Lundregan T. Miller N. McEwan T. Convicted by juries, exonerated by science: case studies in the use of DNA evidence to establish innocence after trial 1996 Alexandria, VA Diane Publishing Company
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Cutler B. L. Penrod S. D. Martens T. K. The Reliability of Eyewitness Identification: The Role of System and Estimator Variables Law and Human Behavior 1987 11 233 258 10.1007/BF01044644
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Davies G. Hine S. Change Blindness and Eyewitness Testimony The Journal of Psychology 2007 14 423 434 10.3200/JRLP.141.4.423-434
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Davis D. Loftus E. F. Vanous S. Cucciare M. ‘Unconscious Transference’ can be an instance of Change Blindness Applied Cognitive Psychology 2008 22 605 623 10.1002/acp.1395
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Dysart J. E. Lindsay R. C. L. Hammond R. Dupois P. Mug Shot Exposure Prior to Lineup Identification: Interference, Transference and Commitment Effects Journal of Applied Psychology 2001 86 1280 1284 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1280
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Faul F. Erdfelder E. Lang A. G. Buchner A. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences Behavior Research Methods 2007 39 175 191 10.3758/BF03193146
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Fitzgerald R. J. Oriet C. Price H. L. Change detection inflates confidence on a subsequent recognition task Memory 2011 19 879 890 10.1080/09658211.2011.613843
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Goldstein E. B. Sensation and Perception 2007 7th Ed. Belmont, CA Thomson Wadsworth
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lane S. Dividing Attention During a Witnessed Event Increases Eyewitness Suggestibility Applied Cognitive Psychology 2006 20 199 212 10.1002/acp.1177
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Lindsay R. C. L. Nosworthy G. J. Martin R. Martynuck C. Using Mug Shots to Find Suspects Journal of Applied Psychology 1994 79 121 130 10.1037/0021-9010.79.1.121 PMid:8200869
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Loftus E. F. Unconscious transference in eyewitness identification Law and Psychology Review 1976 2 93 98
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Mack A. Rock I. Inattentional blindness 1998 Cambridge, MA MIT Press
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Miles J. Banyard P. Understanding and Using Statistics in Psychology: A Practical Introduction 2007 Sage London
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Most S. B. Scholl B. J. Clifford E. R. Simons D. J. What You See Is What You Set: Sustained Inattentional Blindness and the Capture of Awareness Psychological Review 2005 112 217 242 10.1037/0033-295X.112.1.217
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Nelson K. J. Laney C. Fowler N. B. Knowles E. D. Davis D. Loftus E. F. Change blindness can cause mistaken eyewitness identification Legal and Criminological Psychology 2011 16 62 74 10.1348/135532509X482625
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Pashler H. E. The Psychology of Attention 1999 Massachusetts MIT
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Phillips M. R. Geiselman R. E. Haghighi D. Lin C. Some Boundary Conditions for Bystander Misidentification Criminal Justice and Behavior 1997 24 370 390 10.1177/0093854897024003004
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Reinitz M. T. Morrissey J. Demb J. Role of Attention in Face Encoding Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 1994 20 161 168 10.1037/0278-7393.20.1.161
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Ross D. F. Ceci S. J. Dunning D. Toglia M. P. Unconscious Transference and mistaken identify: when a witness misidentifies a familiar but innocent person Journal of Applied Psychology 1994 79 918 930 10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.918
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Scholl B. J. Noles N. S. Pasheva V. Sussman R. Talking on a cellular telephone dramatically increases ‘sustained inattentional blindness’ Journal of Vision 2003 3 156 156 10.1167/3.9.156
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simons D. J. Chabris C. F. Schnur T. Evidence for Preserved Representations in Change Blindness Consciousness and Cognition 2002 11 78 97 10.1006/ccog.2001.0533
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simons D. J. Levin D. R. Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 1998 5 644 649 10.3758/BF03208840
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Simons D. J. Rensink R. A. Change blindness: Past, present, and future Trends in Cognitive Science 2005 9 16 20 10.1016/j.tics.2004.11.006
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Stewart H. A. McAllister H. A. One-at-a-time versus grouped presentation of mug book pictures: Some surprising results Journal of Applied Psychology 2001 86 1300 1305 10.1037/0021-9010.86.6.1300
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Thompson W. B. Zamojski E. Colangelo A. Mugshot group size affects eyewitness mugshot selections Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice 2010 6 1 16
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wells G. L. Murray D. M. What can psychology say about the Neil v. Biggers criteria for judging eyewitness accuracy? Journal of Applied Psychology 1983 68 347 362 10.1037/0021-9010.68.3.347
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wells G. L. Murray D. M. Wells G. L. Loftus E. F. Eyewitness confidence Eyewitness testimony: Psychological perspectives 1984 Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wells G. L. Olsen E. A. Eyewitness Testimony Annual Review of Psychology 2003 54 277 295 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145028
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wells G. L. Small M. Penrod S. Malpass R. S. Fulero S. M. Brimacombe C. A. E. Eyewitness identification procedures: Recommendations for lineups and photospreads Law and Human Behaviour 1998 22 603 647 10.1023/A:1025750605807
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Wisconsin Department of Justice Bureau of Training standards for Criminal Justice Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification 2009 Accessed online: http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/2009-news/eyewitness-public-20091105.pdf
Search in Google Scholar Back to article
Zaragoza M. S. Lane S. M. Processing resources and eyewitness suggestibility Legal and Criminological Psychology 1998 3 305 320 10.1111/j.2044-8333.1998.tb00368.x
Open DOI Search in Google Scholar Back to article