Psychology WA UFPR the Quantitative Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

In the vehicle study, witnesses had to select from various types and colors of vehicles, four of the former and three of the latter. The variables in the study in which listeners heard from 'witness testimony included the participation of both jurors and judges in Arizona, five differently worded findings, as well as two versions of conclusions in which it was stated that the 'suspect' either did or did not commit the crime -- in the opinion of the expert (McQuiston-Surrett and Saks, 2009, p. 441).

However, the data collection was extremely different. In the vehicle witness study, the findings were simply the mathematical results of the percentages of the people who were correct in identifying the requisite vehicle. In the other study, researchers were able to determine how different phrasing and diction swayed the credibility of witness testimony -- with some of the phrasing even mentioning the circumscriptions of forensic-based evidence.

Therefore, it is extremely significant to realize that for the most part, the findings in each of the studies similar. The veracity of witness testimony is extremely dubitable. More than three quarters of the participants in the vehicle study could not correctly identify the automobile. In the expert witness testimony study, the results indicates that the word choice that used by witnesses had considerable sway over the results and impressions made on the listeners -- for both judges and jurors.

The true value in this comparison, however, lies in the fact that the qualitative method indicates why exactly forensic witness testimony is unreliable -- because people can be easily swayed with words, more so than they can be convinced of facts. Such an explanation is not offered in the quantitative study, which simply suggests that this form of criminology -- forensics -- is dubitable.

References

McQuiston-Surrett, D., Saks, M.J. (2009). "The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear." Law and Human Behavior. 33: 436-453.

Villegas, a.B., Sharps, M.J., Satterthwaite, B., Chisolm, S. (2005). "Eyewitness memory for vehicles." The Forensic Examiner. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=e4265201-4916-4a30-9f85-a8889681037f%40sessionmgr14&hid=17

Sources Used in Document:

References

McQuiston-Surrett, D., Saks, M.J. (2009). "The testimony of forensic identification science: what expert witnesses say and what factfinders hear." Law and Human Behavior. 33: 436-453.

Villegas, a.B., Sharps, M.J., Satterthwaite, B., Chisolm, S. (2005). "Eyewitness memory for vehicles." The Forensic Examiner. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?vid=18&sid=e4265201-4916-4a30-9f85-a8889681037f%40sessionmgr14&hid=17

Cite This Term Paper:

"Psychology WA UFPR The Quantitative" (2013, July 21) Retrieved December 19, 2018, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/psychology-wa-ufpr-the-quantitative-93212

"Psychology WA UFPR The Quantitative" 21 July 2013. Web.19 December. 2018. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/psychology-wa-ufpr-the-quantitative-93212>

"Psychology WA UFPR The Quantitative", 21 July 2013, Accessed.19 December. 2018,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/psychology-wa-ufpr-the-quantitative-93212