tn Rll nd Rntn Dffrn Btn l nd Fl l . r l nvrt ll - Algoma

Gender Differences 1

Running Head: EYEWITNESS RECOGNITION DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENDERS

Eyewitness Recall and Recognition Differences Between Males and Females

Kylie M. Marks

Algoma University College


Abstract

To what extent does each gender recall details of an event? The impact that gender

makes in eyewitness recognition influences criminal situations in that if it can be proven that a

gender recalls certain types of information more accurately, then more attention should be paid to

that gender in a real criminal situation where that type of information is most heavily needed.

Other factors that influence eyewitness recognition may include stress and anxiety, race, and age.

There is little pure, direct evidence of these gender eyewitness recognition differences, however,

some may be evident through nondirect areas of research. These include differences between the

genders in terms of memory; hormones, intellectual competencies, brain function and location,

and they influence the recognition and recall of the violent or nonviolent event such as a crime.

In general, women performed better than men on both recall and recognition tests, and males

performed better on tasks of spatial ability whereas women tend to do better on tests of verbal

ability. Also, examined are the recollection influences of pressuring and inference. There exist

extensive differences between the genders and these differences account for the discrimination

within the realm of eyewitness recognition.


Kylie Marks980770340Psyc 4105 (Thesis)Literature Review: Draft #4Final DraftSubmitted To: Prof. Jack DunningDue Date: April 26 th , 2003Submitted On: April 26 th, 2003

Eyewitness Recall and Recognition Differences Between Males and Females

INTRODUCTION

Research dealing with eyewitness identification (recognition and recall) has been going

on for decades. To date, there are still debates as to the accuracy and value of eyewitness

memory and recognition. This venture into the area of law by psychologists sparked considerable

debate. Loftus (1979) suggested that biased arguments (ones who only present research that is in

favor of their claims) failed to take into consideration research that opposes their position, "They

use experimental evidence to support their views and yet attack those very same studies when

they run counter to their prevailing view" (Loftus, 1979).

Researchers who have conducted studies using undergraduate participants agree that

prospective jurors may be unaware of factors that would, and do, influence eyewitness

identifications (Durham, 1999). These researchers have identified several factors related to the

knowledge that potential jurors possess, knowledge that would influence their judgements in

cases involving eyewitness testimony but also factors that would influence the actual eyewitness's

testimony itself. These factors include: memory processes, cross-racial identifications (the ability

to identify someone from another race), effects of age and stress, and the relationship between the

confidence of a witness and his or her accuracy. Although these factors are not direct

experimental evidence of gender differences in eyewitness recognition, they lay the foundations

towards such gender difference research and evidence. However, can a prevalent influencing

factor in eyewitness identification be one of the most elementary facets of an individual, such as

the gender of such an individual? Due to gender differences in factors such as memory, genetics

and brain organization, and perception (recognition), researchers such as Loftus (1979) argue that

gender plays a prominent role in eyewitness recognition.


ARE THERE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE GENDERS IN MEMORY?

Memory Processes - An Overview

People tend to believe that the human brain records and stores visual information in the same

manner as a video tape recorder. This belief is based on the idea that when asked to recall certain

information, an individual would only have to find and play the correct "tape" and provide an

exact account of the original event. However, researchers have found this to be inaccurate

assumption (Durham, 1999). A familiar person is more likely to be chosen from a lineup even if

that person is not the perpetrator. Researchers have also concluded that after a period of several

months a face that has been viewed only once before becomes unrecognizable from faces that

have never been seen before (Durham, 1999). Eyewitnesses may fail to distinguish between

memories of what they actually saw and what they have subsequently been told (or read) about

the same event (Dobson, 1993). This phenomenon was also evidenced by Wright (2000), who

completed a comprehensive study dealing with memory conformity, in which two experiments

demonstrate that post-event information, when delivered by another person, can affect people's

memory reports. In the first experiment, Wright (2000), showed participants several cars, and

later, in pairs, given an 'old'/'new' recognition test on these cars plus several lures. There was a

small but reliable effect of memory conformity found. When the person was given

misinformation this lowered accuracy, while presenting accurate information increased accuracy.

In the second experiment participants, in pairs, viewed an identical crime except half saw an

accomplice with the thief and half did not. Initial memories were very accurate, but after

discussing the crime with the other person in the pair (who saw a slightly different sequence),

most pairs conformed. Confidence ratings strongly predicted which person in the pair persuaded

the other (Wright, 2000).

Kebbell (2000) noted that participants tend to give accurate memory answers faster than

inaccurate ones. Kebbell explained this difference in terms that strongly encoded memory traces

are easier to retrieve and are generally more authentic than weakly encoded memory traces. They

go on to suggest that people are likely to base their judgments of the accuracy of their memories

on the speed with which they retrieve information from memory. Thus, both memory accuracy

and confidence tend to be negatively related to response time (Kebbell, 2000). So this leads to

the suggestion that if each gender is more accurate in recalling certain types of information then

recalling this type of information first might lead to increased confidence overall. For example, if

females recall clothing details more accurately then these memories should be recall first which

increases the confidence of that witness overall.


Instances such as remembering sports statistics but not being able to remember the date

of an important anniversary are often referred to as 'selective memory' whereby what is

remembered is influenced by that which is frequently encountered or is important to the person.

Memory is a dynamic process that not only records initial events, but also is influenced by

inferences and interpretations, which is a critical aspect of eyewitness recognition. It is a critical

aspect if eyewitness recognition in that the eyewitness's recollections have the potential to be

biased by any post-event experiences. Awareness and knowledge of memory, metamemory, has

been shown to affect the development and recall of memory (Callaghan, 2002). However, this

self-monitoring of one's own memory can be inaccurate. Often the validity of a memory and the

confidence of the memory do not correlate. Studies have shown reports of high confidence ratings

concerning accuracy of an event, even when the memory is incorrectly recalled (Callaghan,

2002). This has repercussions for any eyewitness testimony because the witness will report high

confidence in their recollections; however, these memories could very well be false and lead to

innocent people being convicted of crimes that they did not commit.

Understanding these memory processes is essential in a complete understanding of any

gender differences presented. Once these underlying principles of memory have been

established, as being constant, then any potential differences may then be due to other factors,

where gender can be accounted for. It is these memory processes that develop any future

research hypotheses and further study including gender difference research.

Gender Differences In Memory?

Can sex differences concerning the accuracy of recall and confidence in memory be found? One

study has found no significant sex differences on accuracy of recall or resistance to false

information on a short-term memory task (Callaghan, 2002). Callaghan (2002) also examined

another study, which found that women had significantly higher accuracy in text recall and word

recall. Other studies have similarly shown women to have a more accurate verbal memory

(Callaghan, 2002). Callaghan attributed more proficient linguistic processing of right-handed

women than right-handed men to sexual dimorphism within the human brain. In women, there is

a greater representation of language within the right hemisphere. Also, significant sex differences

in the performance on a memory task have been attributed to differences in knowledge and belief

about memory or metamemory (Callaghan, 2002). Women report more strategy use but greater

anxiety in association with memory tasks. Furthermore, in a retrospective evaluation, they had

less confidence in their recall answers than men (Callaghan, 2002).


In one study Callaghan used visual stimuli, instead of verbal, to test men and women on

their short-term memory recall, recognition, and confidence scores. Participants viewed slides

containing material predetermined to be masculine, feminine, or neutral. They were instructed to

watch carefully, as they would be tested for detail later. It was believed that gender roles would

affect both memory accuracy and confidence. Therefore, it was hypothesized that men would

have significantly higher accuracy and confidence on questions concerning masculine stimuli

than women, and that women would have higher accuracy and confidence on questions

concerning feminine stimuli than men. Neither men nor women were expected to have

significantly higher accuracy or confidence on questions concerning neutral stimuli. The stimuli

consisted of 24 predetermined masculine, feminine, or neutral slides, based on the results of a 30-

word survey administered to students of a similar age to that of the participants in the experiment.

Each participant completed two questionnaires. Test one contained 15 recall questions on the

stimuli. Test two contained 15 multiple choice recognition questions and a section in which they

ranked their confidence in each answer on a scale of 1-5 (Callaghan, 2002). Following a

distractor task, participants were instructed that, when indicated, they were to turn over the test

labeled as number 1, and after it had been collected they could then begin test two. After test two

was completed and collected they remained in their seats until the 15-minute time limit was

exhausted or until all participants were finished with both tests (Callaghan, 2002).

The results support the hypothesis that women would perform better and have higher

confidence on tests involving female related stimuli. However, evidence did not support the

hypothesis that men would score higher and have more confidence than women on tests involving

male related stimuli. Although men scored higher on tests with masculine stimuli than on tests

with feminine stimuli, they did not score significantly higher than women on any measure

(Callaghan, 2002). In general, women performed better than men on both recall and recognition

tests. This evidence supports similar findings that have shown that women tend to score higher on

text and word recall (Callaghan, 2002).

Women's greater accuracy in verbal memory has been attributed to a larger area of the

brain devoted to language (Callaghan, 2002). Women have also been shown to incorporate more

strategies and exhibit higher anxiety when taking a memory test. An increased number of

strategies would allow more information to be encoded and retrieved because any information is

being gathered by more than one method, and higher anxiety most likely had the effect of females

making a greater effort to both pay attention and recall information to the best of their ability to

reduce the likelihood of any error. Both variables could increase performance on recall and

recognition and may thus account for the higher performance concerning all three variables.


The fact that men did not score higher than women on tests concerning masculine items

may be explained by an interaction of two factors. The men's mean score was higher on questions

involving masculine items than on questions involving feminine items. This general trend may be

explained by the effect of social factors (in this case gender typing) on metamemory and memory.

However, since men have been shown to have less anxiety on memory tests (Callaghan, 2002),

their attention to initial stimuli may not have been as complete as the women's attention. Thus,

while male's lesser use of strategies and lower anxiety resulted in poorer performance than

females, their gender roles most likely made them more attuned to the masculine stimuli than the

feminine stimuli. Although men's confidence was not higher than women's confidence on

questions concerning masculine stimuli, the confidence level did generally correspond to the

performance level. Thus, there was a trend for women to be more confident on questions

concerning feminine stimuli (than questions concerning masculine items), and men to be more

confident on questions concerning masculine stimuli. A possible reason for the inconsistency may

be that the test was too easy. Perhaps the amount of time exposure to the stimuli was too great.

This is suggested by the fact that most participants scored very high on both the recall and

recognition tests, making it difficult to make strong distinctions between the data. Although the

men's mean score was not higher than the women's mean score on questions concerning

masculine stimuli it is evident that gender related stimuli did affect both metamemory and

memory (Callaghan, 2002).

The Deterioration of Memory

It has been established that memory deteriorates very quickly over time (Miller, 2000).

Witnesses also perceive time as moving more slowly during traumatic events. That, in turn, leads

them to overestimate how much time they had to notice details, a key factor of their credibility in

court. Miller (2000) found that witnesses to a crime are so distracted by the presence of a weapon

-- a phenomenon called "weapon focus", when a robber displays a weapon, the victims are

distracted by the weapon so that they remember little else with accuracy. Witnesses also have

been known to identify as criminals people they recognized from some other encounter, a process

called "transference" (Miller, 2000).

Origin of Distortion and Error in Memory

Autobiographical memory is distorted in a case where one remembers a fact about

themselves that is false. An example of autobiographical memory would be, remembering your

high school grades as being higher than they actually were. Recollection is distorted when a


person unintentionally changes information that was passed to them and that they are passing to

someone else. For example, fabricating a story told to you. Both are examples of cognitive error.

When mistakes are made with memory on the witness stand, all three are involved: cognitive

error, autobiographical distortion, and recollective distortion

(http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/392/eyewitness/eyelect03.html, 2001).

A variety of factors affect accuracy and recall. Recollective distortion occurs most

frequently during the emotional high points in a narrative. Likewise, the more emotional one is in

reminiscing over their earlier years, the more autobiographical distortion can be expected. It is

commonly believed that life events accompanied by strong negative affect or emotion are

remembered with greater difficulty than events accompanied by less intensity, or valence, of the

affect. There seems to be a curvilinear, relationship between emotion and recall. People

sometimes develop so-called "recovered memories" about negative things, but they are less

willing, when faced with the truth, to change their false beliefs about negative things than they are

about positive things, which are more easily distorted or fabricated, unless they are extreme

fabrications. The processes of emotion and memory may be so idiosyncratic that generalizations

are precluded (http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/392/eyewitness/eyelect03.html, 2001).

Memory is assisted by imagery. Imagery can consist of sight (visual), sound (auditory),

or bodily sensation (somatic). Imagery of a visual nature is particularly helpful with

autobiographical memory, but if a strong emotion is involved, somatic imagery is prevalent.

False events can be easily placed in memory by imagery, such as repeatedly showing someone a

fake picture of themselves as a child, or by "brainwashing" a person by repeatedly inundating

them with strong sensory information. This is because rehearsal is one of the most powerful

aspects of remembering. Forced manipulation of rehearsal reduces confidence, but the memory

remains just as strong as if it were self-generated.

Memories are affected by trauma in unusual ways. Trauma has a more detailed and

narrower scope than stress, referring to catastrophic events or events of short duration and high

intensity. Here, what matters is the attention aspect of remembering, whether a person's attention

habits are driven by a locus of internal control or a locus of external control. It also depends upon

how severe the trauma is, of course

(http://faculty.newc.edu/toconnor/392/eyewitness/eyelect03.html, 2001).

Gender, age, and ethnicity differences exist with memory. Gender differences appear

early on, with mothers socializing girls to remember things more emotionally. At young ages,

memory is very suggestible. Ethnic factors tend to work in favor of remembering intra-etimic

details, leaving cross-ethnic memory widely susceptible to distortion. In general, women prove


superior to men in recalling things like weight, height, and hair color, and people between the

ages of 18 and 29 tend to fall in the age group making the best identifications of other people.

How memories are elicited or prompted from a person plays a large role in distortion and

error, mostly through the mechanism of suggestion, and secondly via the mechanism of

contamination. Probably the only way to produce a complete and accurate recollection is to let the

person, at the outset, provide an unstructured narrative account of the events in question, in their

own words, to get out all the vividness and detail

(http://faculty.ncwc.edu/toconnor/392/eyewitness/eyelect03.html, 2001). However, this may

contain self-proclaimed distortions. In other words, even this recollection may not be completely

accurate.

Also, stress can have important effects on memory, but there is controversy in both the

child and adult memory literature regarding whether stress hinders or facilitates memory of an

event. Numerous researchers have found no relation between stress and memory. Some have

found young children remember better from high stress conditions, and that older children

remember less from high stress conditions. It is extremely difficult to regulate stress, however,

and a lot depends upon a person's anxiety levels. Stressful autobiographical memories may also

be influenced by emotion. So-called stressful "flashbulb memories", such as when a prominent

figure was assassinated, or when a Space Shuttle exploded, tend to be vivid because the event is

distinctive and because people talk about and think about the event much more frequently than

about other, more mundane experiences (Guenther, 1998). If someone is under stress, their

attention tends to focus on the cause and/or effects of the stress. Therefore, in most cases, it seems

reasonable to say that most of the time stress serves as a distractor, unless the event-to-be

remembered is tied to the type of stress they are reactive towards. Guenther (1998) suggests that

people who are stressed by violence and crime, for example, should therefore make good

eyewitnesses when they actually observe violence or crime. This may be due to the fact that their

senses and perceptions should become sharper and more vivid. Likewise, Guenther (1998) also

suggests that people who have a military background and are gun aficionados are more likely to

make good eyewitnesses to violent crime. This may be because they are somewhat desensitized

to the weapons so their full attention can be paid to the actual event and not influenced by

"weapon focus". Some conditions of stress seem to produce external loci of control and a type of

focus, which actually make for better, not worse, accuracy and recall.


MODELS EXPLAINING SEX DIFFERENCES

Sex Differences in Intellectual Competencies

Many studies of sex differences in cognition report that males tend to do better in tests of

mathematical and spatial ability, and females tend to do better in tests of verbal ability (Guenther,

1998).

The nature of the sex differences depends on how cognitive skills are measured. To

illustrate, males do slightly better than females on spatial tests that measure the ability to orient

oneself in relationship to objects or to mentally transform spatial information. Females, however,

do slightly better than males on spatial tests measuring ability to learn and remember spatial

relationships (Guenther, 1998). These differences are at the heart of the controversy of whether

cognitive differences between the sexes are due to different genes or to the different environments

and cultures in which they grow up.

Research has shown that men outperform women in the ability to visualize and mentally

rotate three-dimensional objects. Bowers (1998) reported that, compared with women, men

require less time and practice to successfully complete mental rotation tasks. Evidence for this

effect has been demonstrated across a range of social-class groups, races, and culture types

(Bowers, 1998). One common explanation for this performance difference is that men and

women possess different brain structures that influence the efficient processing of spatial tasks.

Genetic Basis of Sex Differences in Cognition

Males and females are treated differently and encouraged in different ways. Boys are

more likely to be encouraged to pursue spatial skill careers, whereas females are encouraged to

pursue careers that depend on communication skills. However, researchers have still proposed

genetically based biological explanations for male-female differences in cognition. One potential

cause of sex differences is attributed to the supposedly different selective pressures on males and

females as humans evolved. Guenther (1998) states that males did the hunting, and so evolved

better spatial skills for orienting to and transforming spatial information; and females did the

gathering and child rearing, and so evolved better spatial memory and verbal skills.

The genes that underlie sex differences in cognition might control a biological

mechanism. One example of a biological mechanism that may plausibly be coded for in the

genes and that may give rise to sex differences in cognition is the production of sex hormones.

Sex hormones, such as testosterone, are known to influence the organization of the mammalian

brain during critical periods in prenatal development. A variety of research supports a correlation

between sex hormones and performance on sex-differentiating cognitive tasks (Guenther, 1998).


Women who were exposed to abnormally high levels of the male hormone androgen in

utero score higher than do controls on tests of spatial ability. Older males given testosterone

improve on visual-spatial tasks (Guenther, 1998).

Brain Structure & Function Differences

How do these hormones affect the brain so that these differences arise? One possible

answer to this question is that hormones affect how the cerebral hemispheres distribute their

function. In most people the left hemisphere is more involved than the right in the control of

language whereas the right hemisphere is more involved than the left in the control of spatial

processing. Previous studies have indicated that men are more right-hemisphere dominant for

spatial processing, whereas women are more bilateralized (Bowers, 1998). Perhaps the female

advantage for some verbal skills reflects the involvement of more right-hemisphere neural tissue

in language - neural tissue that at the same time encroaches on the neural tissue that would have

been used for spatial processing. At least some evidence suggests that there is less tendency

among women for their left hemisphere to control language more than their right hemisphere

(Guenther, 1998). Such findings suggest that men may have a more "pure" or uninterrupted

cerebral area that controls nonverbal functions. Women, on the other hand, may experience

interference from the language areas; a position supported by findings that women often utilize

verbal mediation to assist them in processing spatial tasks (Bowers, 1998). For women, this

bilateral processing of spatial relations impairs performance on spatial tasks. Men, on the other

hand, because of right hemisphere dominance, complete the same spatial problems in a less

encumbered manner (Bowers, 1998).

Other research by Kimura (1992) suggests that the organization of functions within the

left hemisphere differs between the sexes. For language functions, women may make more use

of the anterior portions of the left hemisphere whereas men make more use of the posterior left

hemisphere. Such a difference may give rise to the tendency for women to do better on tests of

verbal fluency, because the grammatical aspect of language may be more anatomically connected

to the planning and strategic components of information processing. The more intimate

connection in males between language centers and the centers involved in visual perception may

give rise to the male advantages on spatial reasoning tasks. One line of evidence consistent with

this view is that aphasia (language disturbance) occurs more often in women when the damage is

near the front of the left hemisphere, but more often in men when the damage is in the posterior

area of the left hemisphere (Guenther, 1998).


Environmental Explanations for Sex Differences in Cognition

Also there is a viable possibility that sex differences in cognition are due mostly to

environmental factors. One line of evidence for environmental factors of sex differences is that

parental attitudes and expectations are correlated with performance on math and verbal tests

(Guenther, 1998). An especially compelling line of evidence is research that shows that, with

practice and feedback, women improve as much as men do on spatial tasks (Guenther, 1998).

RECALL vs. RECOGNITION

A Definition

As reported by Clifford & Bull (1978), recall is a measure of retention in which no external help

is given to the recaller in his attempt to retell what he saw or heard. An example of recall would

be when a police officer asks a witness, "Can you describe the man you saw running away from

the car?" (Clifford & Bull, 1978). Recognition memory is involved when the initial stimulus is

re-presented and the person simply has to express a feeling of familiarity. This is the case in

identification line-ups when the perpetrator is presented to the witness and if the witness

remembers the perpetrator, simply has to respond with, "Yes that is him/her" (Clifford & Bull,

1978).

INFLUENCING FACTORS IN RECOGNITION

Race

There is clear evidence that characteristics of a person's face can affect memory for that face.

Researchers have carried out studies in which they have found that cross-racial identifications are

generally more difficult than own-race identifications (Durham, 1999).

Another study offers important conclusions concerning intergroup biases in eyewitness

situations. First, an eyewitness's evaluation of distinctly violent intergroup behavior may be

biased as a function of the social group membership of perpetrator and witness. Second,

expectations about criminal behavior among persons from a certain social group may affect a

witness's memory of the appearance of the perpetrator (Lindholm, 1998).

Age

The age of an eyewitness has also been found to play a role in the accuracy of eyewitness's

identifications. According to Smith and Winograd (1978) younger participants performed better

than elderly participants in similar facial recognition tasks (Durham, 1999). From this, it could be


hypothesized that recognition ability improves with age up to a point and then declines somewhat

as an individual gets older.

Stress & Anxiety

Some participants also believe that under stressful conditions memory is better than it would be

under a non-stressful condition; this belief is false (Dobson, 1992). The findings for the

stressfulness of an event also hold true for the violent or nonviolent nature of an event; i.e.

contrary to popular belief, people tend to remember the events surrounding a nonviolent crime

better than those of a violent crime. Several researchers have produced evidence that weapon

focus interferes with their ability to process details about the event as they relate to the robber's

face (Miller, 2000). Eyewitnesses also have a tendency to overestimate the length of time it took

for a crime to take place (Durham, 1999). Evidence supports the suggestion that the extent to

which a witness is paying attention is a factor (this paying attention may be compromised due to

factors such as weapon focus etc.) in the accuracy of the witness's memory. However, evidence

has also proven incorrect the notion that the degree of certainty of an eyewitness is a factor in the

accuracy of that witness's memory. It may seem to be "common sense" that the more confident a

witness is about his/her identification the more accurate the identification would be. The

experimental literature has found no support for a positive relationship in this assumption; there is

no relationship between confidence and accuracy (Durham, 1999). However, Kebbell and

Wagstaff (1996) have evidenced that the confidence eyewitness express in information heavily

influences both the investigative process and the credence which jurors give to eyewitness

testimony.

The relationship between individual differences in anxiety level and accuracy in

eyewitness testimony illustrates how personality affects memory functioning in an applied social

context (Dobson, 1992). Dobson (1992) noted that anxious and self-preoccupied subjects were

poor witnesses; however, it is unclear whether the subjects' anxiety was aroused at encoding, at

retrieval, or at both. It has been demonstrated that an individual's level of neuroticism (which is

highly correlated with anxiety) affected the individual's reliability as an eyewitness, following the

presentation of misleading information (Dobson, 1992).

Dobson (1992) investigated eyewitness accuracy following the observation of a violent or

nonviolent event and found that the information the subjects recalled was significantly less

accurate for the violent incident. These findings support the conclusion that perceived violence

results in an arousal-attenuated coding factor, consistent with the hypothesis that arousal reduces

the range of cues a person attends to (Dobson, 1992). Examining the impact of anxiety at


retrieval is important because witnesses are likely to become anxious when they are questioned,

especially if they believe that the accuracy of their testimony is being evaluated. People differ in

their propensity to become anxious under such conditions (Dobson, 1992).

Inference May Influence Recall

Clifford and Bull (1978) demonstrated that "observations that witnesses often infer the presence

of one physical feature from their recall of the observed person's possession of another". In this

experiment, a person entered a lecture to search for a briefcase and after walking around the room

the lecturer asked him to leave. In the first trial, the target person was in reality, blond, with

green eyes and a fair complexion. The eyewitness's descriptions of the target were very accurate

for hair colour (93% reported blond hair). However, of this 93% almost half described the target

as having blue eyes and only 7% correctly reported green eyes. The proportion of the observers

which indicated that the target had blond hair, a fair complexion and blue eyes was 36% (Clifford

& Bull, 1978). In the second trial, with a different audience, the target in reality had dark hair,

grey eyes, and a light complexion. All the observers correctly reported the target's hair colour.

However, over half of them incorrectly reported the eye colour as being brown and none correctly

identified eye colour as being grey. In regards to complexion, 44% correctly reported a fair

complexion whereas 56% reported a dark complexion. Therefore, the proportion of observers

who reported the target as having dark hair, brown eyes, and a dark complexion was 44%

(Clifford & Bull, 1978).

These effects of blond hair incorrectly implying blue eyes, and dark hair suggesting

brown eyes and a dark complexion indicate that witnesses fill in gaps in their recall by employing

stereotypes. These utilized stereotypes might be correct most of the time; however, in the cases

that they are wrong the witness may give inaccurate testimony, which may harm an innocent

person. The high proportion of witnesses correctly reporting hair colour suggests, that this

physical attribute is more readily perceived than eye colour or type of complexion and therefore

should carry more weight in real-life situations. Unfortunately, hair colour is more easily

changed or manipulated than eye colour so even though details of the target's hair may be more

reliably reported they are not so fixed aspects of a person as are other attributes such as eye

colour and complexion type.

PERCEPTION

According to MacCoby & Jacklin (1974), males perceive more through looking, arm

females through listening. Females therefore, have an advantage on verbal recall tasks (Chipman,


Kimura, & Fraser, 1998). In a recollection experiment conducted by Chipman et al. (1998), after

being exposed to 32 familiar objects, represented by 16 typewritten words and 16 black-and-

white line drawings, female participants recalled significantly more words and line drawings

(items) than male participants. It appears that the superior performance of women on the

incidental verbal memory task "could not be attributed to a greater female ability to categorically

remember items, but rather was a reflection of greater female verbal memory" (Chipman et al.,

1998).

In addition to perceiving more through listening (verbal content), "female listeners

judged the speakers to be more competent than did the male listeners" (Feldstein, 2001). This

finding may influence any descriptions or identifications made in real-life situations. Females are

more interested in social stimuli, whereas males are more interested in "things". Also, MacCoby

& Jacklin (1974) found that females had increased incidental learning in film observation, and

recalling details from films. This may be true however, "observers' recall of individuals will be a

function not only of what they actually perceived at the time of the relevant incident but also of

what their stereotypic notions suggest to them" (Clifford and Bull, 1978).

It was argued by Loftus (1979) that perceiving faces in terms of personality

characteristics produced better recognition scores than perceiving them on the basis of facial

features. This could be due to the fact that in order to perceive facial features the eyewitness only

has to attend to a single feature such as the presence of a beard or hair colour, whereas the

perception of a personality characteristic requires the perception of the full face which leads to

greater accuracy in recognition at a later date (Loftus, 1979).

All sorts of factors influence our ability to perceive facial detail and more specifically to

recognize and recall facial detail. There is clear evidence that characteristics of a person's face can

affect memory for that face. For instance, psychologists have established that most of us have

more difficulty-recognizing people of a different race. Researchers have found that cross-racial

identifications are generally more difficult than own-race identifications (Durham, 1999).

Examining the impact of anxiety at retrieval is important because witnesses are likely to

become anxious when they are questioned, especially if they believe that the accuracy of their

testimony is being evaluated. People differ in their propensity to become anxious under such

conditions (Dobson, 1992).

An experiment by Winningham & Weaver (2000), examined the effects of pressuring a

witness into revealing more details of a staged event during a "filler" experiment. Participants

were divided into three groups. The first group (pressure group) participated in five experimental

sessions and were pressured to report more details during the second, third, and fourth sessions.


Participants in the non-pressure group also participated in five sessions but they were not

pressured to report more details during any of the sessions. The control group participants took

part only in the first and fifth sessions and were never pressured into remembering more details.

Results of this experiment conclude that pressuring participants to report more details increased

the number of accurate and inaccurate statements. However, pressuring participants to report

more details did not change the predictive accuracy of their confidence judgements (Winningham

& Weaver, 2000). One suggestion from this finding is that if females utilize more strategies

when performing a memory task (Callaghan, 2002), then perhaps their overall amount of

information recalled may be greater than that of males.

Overall, there are many factors that influence eyewitness recall and recognition. These

include stress and anxiety, race, and age. However, the one factor that may play the biggest role

in eyewitness recognition is that of gender. Even though there is little in the way of direct

research in the area of gender differences in eyewitness recognition, research done in other areas

may lead to such gender difference evidence. These other areas include, differences between the

genders in terms of memory, hormones, intellectual competencies, brain function and location

and emotion influence the recognition and recall of the violent or nonviolent event such as a

crime. Women perform better and have higher confidence involving female related stimuli, and

in general, performed better than men on both recall and recognition tests. Women also have a

distinct advantage over men when dealing with verbal content and verbal recall, and possess

overall better verbal ability. However, it has been reported that males perform better on tasks of

spatial ability. This may be due to the male hormone androgen because when women were

exposed to abnormally high levels of androgen they did better on tests of spatial ability. Also, the

female brain is more bilateralized which may also account for the increased language and verbal

ability since more right-hemisphere neural tissue is being used for language instead of for spatial

processing. In regards to pressuring a witness, pressuring participants to report more details

increased the number of accurate and inaccurate statements. Also, the inference of details that

were not readily recalled may lead to inaccurate descriptions of a target. According to the

research there exists extensive differences between the genders and these differences account for

the discrimination within the realm of eyewitness recognition.


REFERENCES

Adderly, Brenda D. (1999). Stay Sharp! Essence, 29, 34-36.

Berger, James D., & Herringer, Lawrence G. (1991). Individual Differences in Eyewitness

Recall Accuracy. Journal of Social Psychology, 131, 807-814.

Bowers, Clint A., Milham, L. M., & Price, C. (1998). Dual-Task Results and the Lateralization

of Spatial Orientation: Artifact of Test Selection? The Journal of General Psychology, 125, 5-

16.

Callaghan, A. D., Fallon, L.J., Judy, S.E., Lucas, S.A., & Weiler, B.W. (n.d.) Metamemory as a

Function of Gender-Related Stimuli. University of Florida. Retrieved November 4, 2002,

from http://www.psych.ufl.edu/levy/96 4.html

Chipman, Karen, Kimura, Doreen, & Fraser, Simon. (1998). An Investigation of Sex

Differences on Incidental Memory for Verbal and Pictorial Material. Learning & Individual

Differences, 10, 259-273.

Clifford, Brian R., & Bull, Ray (1978). The Psychology of Person Identification. North East

London Polytechnic. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.

Dobson, Matthew, & Markham, Roslyn (1992). Individual Differences in Anxiety Level and

Eyewitness Memory. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 343-351.

Dobson, Matthew, & Markham, Roslyn (1993). Imagery Ability and Source Monitoring:

Implications for Eyewitness Memory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 111-119.

Durham, Marcus D., & Dane, Francis C. (1999). Juror Knowledge of Eyewitness Behavior:

Evidence for the Necessity of Expert Testimony. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality,

14, 299-309.


Feldstein, Stanley, Dohm, Faith-Anne, & Crown, Cynthia. (2001). Gender and Speech Rate in

the Perception of Competence and Social Attractiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology,

141, 785-806.

Guenther, R. Kim. (1998). Human Cognition. Hamline University. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kebbell, Mark R., & Giles, David C. (2000). Some Experimental Influences of Lawyers'

Complicated Questions on Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. The Journal of Psychology,

134, 129-139.

Kebbell, Mark R., & Wagstaff, Graham F. (1996). The Influence of Item Difficulty on the

Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. British Journal of Psychology,

87, 653-663.

Lindholm, Torun, & Christianson, Svan-Ake (1998). Intergroup Biases and Eyewitness

Testimony. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 710-724.

Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. England: Harvard University Press.

Miller, D.W. (2000). Looking Askance at Eyewitness Testimony. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 46, A19-A21.

Sources of Distortion and Error in Memory. (2001). Retrieved October 30, 2002, from

http ://faculty. rime ed u/toconnor/392/eyewitn es s/eye lect03 . html.

Widen, Sherri C. & Russell, James A. (2002). Gender and Preschoolers' Perception of Emotion.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 48, 248-262.

Winningham, Robert C. & Weaver, Charles A. (2000). The Effects of Pressure to Report More

Details on Memories of an Eyewitness Event. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 12,

271-283.


Wright, Daniel B., Self, Gail, & Justice, Chris (2000). Memory Conformity: Exploring

Misinformation Effects when Presented by Another Person. British Journal of Psychology, 91,

189-203.


Running Head: EYEWITNESS ACCURACY DIFFERENCES BETWEEN GENDERS

Gender Differences in Recognition (& Accuracy) In Eyewitness Identification

Kylie M. Marks

Algoma University College


Abstract

To what extent does each gender recall details of an event? This study examines the

accuracy of each gender on the basis of 6 categories: verbal vs. looking, clothes vs. appearance,

and actions vs. things/surroundings. Approximately an hour following a brief interruption and

announcement by a target person, a 30-item questionnaire was distributed asking detailed

questions about the target person and the announcement that was made. The only statistically

significant finding was that females recalled significantly more visual information when viewing

another female as opposed to viewing a male There were no other significant differences.


Kylie Marks

980770340

Submitted To: J. Dunning

Final Draft #2 [Proposal Draft #10]

Research Paper

Submitted On: April 256, 2003

Gender Differences in Recognition (& Accuracy) In Eyewitness Identification

Introduction

Researchers who have conducted studies using undergraduate participants agree that

prospective jurors may be unaware of factors that would, and do, influence eyewitness identifications

(Durham 1999). These researchers have identified several factors related to the knowledge that

potential jurors possess, knowledge that would influence their judgements in cases involving

eyewitness testimony but also factors that would influence the actual eyewitness's testimony itself.

These factors include: memory processes, cross-racial identifications (the ability to identify someone

from another race), effects of age and stress, and the relationship between the confidence of a witness

and his or her accuracy. In eyewitness identification, one of the greatest influencing factors is the

gender of the witness. Due to gender differences in factors such as memory, genetics and brain

organization, and perception (recognition), researchers such as Loftus (1979) argue that gender plays a

prominent role in eyewitness recognition.

Gender Differences

Loftus (1979) states that both women and men pay more attention to items that catch their

interest and consequently store more or better information in memory about those items. For instance,

females attend to and therefore recall more readily female-oriented items and males recall more

readily male-oriented items. Loftus (1979) had male and female participants view a slide show

depicting a wallet-snatching incident. Following the slideshow a questionnaire was presented to

measure the accuracy of their memory. Overall, the results indicated that females were slightly more

accurate than males. Women were more accurate than men on questions dealing with women's

clothing or actions, whereas men were more accurate on questions concerning the perpetrator's

appearance and the surroundings (Loftus, 1979).

Many studies report that males tend to do better in tests of mathematical and spatial

ability, and females tend to do better in tests of verbal ability (Guenther, 1998). MacCoby &


Jacklin (1974) stated that females show somewhat better memory for verbal content and males bettermemory for recalling designs, a task that probably relates to the area of visual-spatial skills in whichmales frequently excel. Also, MacCoby & Jacklin found that males remembered more performed than

verbalized material, whereas females recalled both equally well.Yarmey (1979) found that females were significantly more accurate in their testimony than

were male witnesses. However, females were inferior to males when they recalled events of a violent

nature, and both sexes recalled more facts from a nonviolent crime. In a study examined by

Callaghan (2002) women had significantly higher accuracy in text recall and word recall. Other

studies have similarly shown women to have a more accurate verbal memory. Callaghan

attributed more proficient linguistic processing of right-handed women than right-handed men to

sexual dimorphism within the human brain. In women, there is a greater representation of

language within the right hemisphere. Therefore, women are more accurate in recalling verbal

content due to the greater area of the brain being devoted to language. Also, significant sex

differences in the performance on a memory task have been attributed to differences in

knowledge and belief about memory or metamemory (Callaghan, 2002). Women report more

strategy use but greater anxiety in association with the memory task. Furthermore, in a

retrospective evaluation, they had less confidence in their recall answers than men, although

women performed better.Another difference may exist in facial memory. Yarmey (1979) states that "in the case of

recognition memory for faces differences in accuracy seem to lean toward females". Females were

significantly better than males in recognizing colour slides of faces and were particularly better inremembering other female faces. Females were only slightly better than males in recognizing male

faces (Yarmey, 1979). Yarmey (1979) concludes that accuracy of performance may depend on the

gender of the subject and the gender of the face being observed. Yarmey found that males were better

in identifying male faces and females were superior in remembering female faces. This conclusion isbased on the fact that female subjects were reliably better at recognizing other female faces, whereas

male subjects recognized male and female faces equally well, and females were able to discriminate

most easily among faces that differed in their distinctiveness characteristics as opposed to

attractiveness and liking. In other words, females accuracy increased when they had to discriminateamong faces that differed in terms of distinctiveness (i.e. distinguishing features) as opposed toattractiveness (i.e. hair colour).

There is some recent evidence that ascribed gender can affect emotion judgements, even

with good, clear cues to a basic emotion. Modern psychological researchers indicate that men and

women possess different skills related to the sending and receiving of emotion. In generai,

women are more emotionally expressive, whereas men conceal or control their emotional


displays. In addition to their encoding ability, women tend to express emotion through facial

expression and interpersonal communication, whereas men generally express emotion through

actions such as engaging in aggressive, dangerous, or distracting behavior (Soojin, 2000).

The complexity of recognition memory for own-sex and other-sex faces extends to an

interaction of sex of subjects, sex of stimulus faces, and the attractiveness, distinctiveness, and

likeability of the faces (Yarmey, 1979). In other words, recognition of same sex and other sex faces

for any individual is dependent on the interaction of several factors. These factors include the sex of

the subject, sex of the stimulus face and the level of perceived attractiveness, distinctiveness, and the

likeability of the face.

Perception

According to MacCoby & Jacklin (1974), males perceive more through looking, and females

through listening. Females are more interested in social stimuli, whereas males are more interested in

"things" Also, MacCoby & Jacklin (1974) found that females had increased incidental learning in

film observation, and recalling details from films

It was argued by Loftus (1979) that perceiving faces in terms of personality characteristics

produced better recognition scores than perceiving them on the basis of facial features. This could be

due to the fact that in order to perceive facial features the eyewitness only has to attend to a single

feature such as the presence of a beard or hair colour, whereas the perception of a personality

characteristic requires the perception of the full face which leads to greater accuracy in recognition at

a later date (Loftus, 1979).All sorts of factors influence our ability to perceive facial detail and more specifically to

recognize and recall facial detail. There is clear evidence that characteristics of a person's face can

affect memory for that face. For instance, psychologists have established that most of us have more

difficulty-recognizing people of a different race. Researchers have found that cross-racial

identifications are generally more difficult than own-race identifications (Durham 1999).

The age of an eyewitness has also been found to play a role in the accuracy of eyewitness

recognitions. Smith and Winograd (1978) found that younger participants performed better than

elderly participants in similar facial recognition tasks (Durham 1999). Examining the impact of

anxiety at retrieval is important because witnesses are likely to become anxious when they are

questioned, especially if they believe that the accuracy of their testimony is being evaluated. People

differ in their propensity to become anxious under such conditions (Dobson 1992).

For the purposes of this study, the main issue to be dealt with is that of accuracy. Accuracy is

a function of both perception and memory, however, as of right now there appears to be no distinct


and significant differences between genders in regards to the memory aspect of accuracy. It has been

proven that there are gender differences in recall and recognition following the witnessing of an event.

However, are there gender differences in the accuracy of the recognition of an (criminal) event, when

a multi-judgement environment is utilized so that not only one aspect of recall is been judged.

Individual details will be extracted, measured and therefore derived from these measurements,

expected results will develop. The expected results for females include having a higher accuracy

score on items dealing with, listening/verbal content, (women's) clothing, actions, and other females.

The expected results for males include having a higher accuracy score on items dealing with looking

content, appearance, things, surroundings, and other males.

If there exists many differences between males and females in terms of how they perceive an

event and to what extent they recall this event, then it is important to identify and interpret these

differences due to the implications they have into eyewitness testimony. These differences between

the genders impact eyewitness testimony in that testimony can be improved depending upon the

person (i.e. the gender) testifying, in that the questions being asked of a particular witness may be

modified in order to elicit the greatest amount of relevant information.

Method

Participants

The participants included students present in 6 undergraduate classes on a given regular teaching

day, at Algoma University College, who were willing to participate. For 2 of the classes, both

Introductory Psychology classes, the participant's credit was earned following the completion of

a questionnaire. The students were given the option to participate or not and only the ones who

chose to stay and participate received the questionnaire.

Design and Procedure

This experiment utilized a 2x2 factorial design in which the variable TargetPerson Gender has

two levels, male and female and the other variable Participant Gender also has two levels (male

and female).

Phase I:

On a regular teaching day a target interrupted a class approximately 10-15 minutes after it began.

In 2 of the 6 classes the target was male and in the other 4 classes the target was female. The

designated classes were interrupted as close to the same point into the class as possible to avoid

any potential confounds pertaining to the time. The target subject was instructed to knock on the


door, enter the room, and stand at the front of the room - on one side just inside the door and to

say the following announcement:

"Sorry for the interruption. I just wanted to make a quick announcement. There is agreen truck parked on the far left side of the parking lot under the trees, with the NewHampshire license plates, GCA-733, that has been dented in the right rear fender. I havebeen told that the accident happened around 20 minutes ago. If this is your vehicle or ifyou know any additional information you are asked to go to Student Services and speakwith Mrs. Jody Kent and fill out both an Insurance Form, and Accident Report. Thanks."

Phase II:

Following the approximate 15-30 second interruption by the target person, the class continued

and therefore acted as a distractor from the stimulus of the target subject, in order to allow for

some forgetting to take place.

Phase III:

I entered the classroom, approximately an hour after the interruption and asked for the students

participation in aiding me with my research by filling out the questionnaire that would only

require approximately 10 minutes of their time. They were also told that the questionnaires were

anonymous. Also, I asked them to indicate at the top of their questionnaire if the person who had

interrupted the class was at all familiar to them and if they were then their data would be

discarded. The instructions provided that there was to be no discussion within the group

regarding the answers, and there was to be no looking ahead in the questionnaire or going back

after a page was completed. For the Introductory Psychology classes, I instructed the students that

in order to gain a course credit they could fill in the questionnaire. After they were finished

answering the questionnaire, all students were instructed to hand-in their questionnaire to me and

for the two Intro Psyc classes they were to sign a sheet, as proof of attendance/participation in

order to gain their course credit.

The questions on the questionnaire measured different categories of information, in order

to measure specific male vs. female differences. For each of the specific items being evaluated in

the multiple choice questions, details ranged on a scale of 1 - 3, 1 being broad, 2 being more

detail, and 3 being fine detail. In which the broad would be easily recalled and the finer would be

recalled with more difficulty.

There were both recognition questions (multiple choice) and free-recall (short answer) questions

on the questionnaire, which dealt the participants accuracy in recalling the details of the

interruption that, had occurred an hour ago. There were 6 subcategories measured within the

questionnaire. These included, Verbal Content, Looking, Clothing, Appearance, Actions, and


Things/Surroundings. Verbal content measured the participant's accuracy in recalling what the

target person said, for example, "Where did the person say to report any information?" or " Where

was the mentioned vehicle from?" The looking scale measured the participant's accuracy in

recalling the target person's physical characteristics. Some sample questions that measured this

scale included, "What colour was the person's hair?" or "Approximately what was the height of

the person?" The clothing scale measured the participants accuracy in recalling what the person

was wearing, for example, jacket and pants details. Sample questions include, "What colour was

the person 's hat?" and "Please describe the person's footwear as fully as possible." The

appearance scale measured the participant's accuracy in recalling details such as facial hair,

glasses and the presence of any jewelry. Questions for this scale included, "Did the person have

facial hair?" and "If the person was wearing glasses, please describe them as fully as possible."

The actions scale measured the participant's accuracy in recalling what the person did, for

example knocking on the door and where the person stood while making the announcement.

Other questions included, "What was the prominent state (mood) of the person?" The final scale

on things/surroundings measured the participants accuracy in recalling details dealing with

objects and the environment, such as was the person carrying something and the time of the

interruption. Questions for measuring this scale included, "Was the person carrying something

upon entering the room?" and "Approximately what time did the person interrupt the class?" The

questionnaire had a total of 30 questions.

In regards to the items dealing with dress, it is expected that females would score higher

than males. The questions ranged from the broad category (target's hat) to the fine (the presence

of accessories). Scores that deal with items dealing with appearance and surroundings would be

higher for males. The verbal content questions were expected to be more accurately answered by

females as well as the items dealing with facial differentiation. Whichever gender the target

subject was, the same gender in that class was expected to be more accurate. Also, it was

expected that females would be better at recognition items dealing with distinctiveness

characteristics as opposed to attractiveness and liking, listening, social content and emotionally

expressive and responsive, whereas males were expected to be better at recognition items dealing

with looking, and things or objects.


Results

There were both recognition questions (multiple choice) and free-recall (short answer)

questions on the questionnaire. There were 18 multiple-choice questions and 12 free-recall

questions. The multiple choice questions were worth 1 mark each and the short answer questions

were worth 2 marks each with a full 2 marks being given for recalling 3 or more correct details, 1

mark for 1 or 2 correct details and 0 marks for no correct details given.

The 6 sub-scales included, Verbal Content, Looking, Clothing, Appearance, Actions, and

Things/Surroundings. The verbal content had 11 items, which were graded out of a total of 15.

The looking scale had a total of 4 items and was out of 5. The clothing scale had a total of 5

items and was out of 7. The appearance scale had a total of 3 items and was out of a total of 4.

The actions scale had a total of 3 items and was out of 3. The final scale on things/surroundings

had a total of 2 items and was out of 2. The questionnaire had a total of 30 questions and a total

accuracy rating out of 37 possible marks.

Differences between the genders on the basis of the 6 scales were not evident in that the

numerical differences were small and hardly any statistical significance was found. Overall

accuracy was calculated by adding the scores on the 6 individual scales, which were the

dependent measures. Both genders performed equally as well across all 6 dependent measures.

Overall, women's performance was slightly more accurate than male's. This superiority was

evident for female's viewing another female which was present within the looking scale.

The means were calculated for both males and females on all 6 scales (See Table 1).

TABLE 1

Scale: Male Female

1) Verbal - /15 8.154 8.5

2) Looking - /5 2.654 2.861

3) Clothes - /7 2.827 2.722

4) Appearance - /4 2.442 2.241

5) Actions - /3 1.981 1.963

6) Things/Surroundings - /2 1.5 1.463

Overall Accuracy Score - /37 20.712 20.75


These means were found to hold no statistical significance. This can be evidenced through Figure

1. Figure 1 graphically represents the yielded means and shows the minor differences between

the genders.

FIGURE 1

87654321

Verbal ContentE Looking0 Clot • i g0 Appearance

Actions• ngs/Surroundings

Male Female

The overall total accuracy score is depicted in Figure 2 since, it was out of a total of 37 marks and

would complicate Figure 1, in that the measuring scale would not provide an accurate depiction.

Once again, no statistical significance was found because the difference was so minor in nature.

Males were found to have a mean overall accuracy score of 20.712 out of a total of 37, while

females were found to have a mean overall accuracy score of 20.75 out of 37. This corresponds

to a difference of only 0.038.


FIGURE 2

Overall Accuracy

Male Fe ale

Following the calculation of the means, a Multiple Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) was

performed and although it yielded no statistically significant differences, it indicated where to

examine next in the data to look for statistically significant results. Following the MANOVA,

two 2-way ANOVAs were performed. The first on the total, and the second on the looking scale.

On all tests an alpha level of 0.05 was used in determining statistical significance. From the firstANOVA performed, it was found that in terms of overall accuracy means, that participants that

viewed a female had a higher mean (21.110) than those who viewed a male (18.625). The only

statistical significance was found within the second performed ANOVA on the looking scale with

F (1,76) = 5.26, p<0.05. This statistically significant results indicated that females recalled more

accurate information when they viewed another female (mean = 3.011), as opposed to a female

viewing a male (mean = 1.857). This finding explained 6.5% of the variability of recall of

looking.

Although no overwhelmingly statistically significant differences were found, there did

exist certain trends in the data pointing in certain directions. These small trends pointed in both

the right and wrong direction in regards to expected results. The positive trends displayed

tendencies in the direction of the expected results, while the negative trends displayed tendencies

in the direction opposite of what was expected. See Table 1 for Mean Differences, and Figures 1

& 2. The overall accuracy score means indicated that women were found to be slightly more

overall accurate, which was expected and therefore is a positive trend. However, the results for

the individual scales provided somewhat different results than expected. The positive trends (i.e.


matching expected results) included females scoring higher on the verbal scale, males scoring

higher on both the appearance scale, and the things/surroundings scale. The negative trends (i.e.

different from expected results) included, females scoring higher on the looking scale, and males

scoring higher on both the clothing scale and the actions scale. For the positive trends, the

yielded results agreed with the expected results, for example, females were supposed to score

higher on the verbal scale. Whereas, for the negative trends the yielded results did not agree with

the expected results, for example, expected results stated that males should score higher on the

looking scale however, the yielded results indicated that females scored higher on the looking

scale.


Discussion

The results of this experiment support the original hypothesis that women would perform

better, in that they would be more accurate in recalling overall details of an event. Although men

scored higher on certain individual scales such as, clothing, appearance, actions, and

things/surroundings, they did not score significantly higher than women on any individual

measure. In general, women performed better than men on the recall of verbal content, and

looking. This evidence supports similar findings of another experiment that has shown that

women tend to score higher on text and word recall (MacCoby & Jacklin, 1974). Women's greater

accuracy in verbal memory has been attributed to a larger area of the brain devoted to the

language function (Callaghan, 2002).

None of the results received were what was expected in terms of significance. There

existed only minor variants in the means, hardly enough to state a positive difference. There are

several possible contributing factors to this phenomenon. One such factor is that only 6 of the

originally planned 8 classes were utilized, this decreased the overall number of participants

available. This also effected the ratio of males to females in that the majority of the students used

were female, which leads to a potential area of bias in that, the higher scores for females maybe

due to the higher number of female participants. Another contributing factor is that of the

originally planned 2 female targets and 2 male targets, only 2 females and 1 male were able to

participate. This affected the results in that, more participants were exposed to a female target,

this included two of the larger classes utilized. Therefore, the majority of the participants were

exposed to a female target, which indicates that experimental bias is possible here because the

sample sizes between the groups were less than equal. Another potential source of bias stems

from the fact that the different classes of participants were exposed to the targets under different

environmental conditions, in that all of the trials were not held in the same room (environment)

due to pre-existing scheduling conflicts.

A concern within this experiment revolves around ecological validity and the

surroundings. One hypothesis of not receiving the desired results lies in the fact that the

interruption and announcement event were not real enough, in that the participants did not

perceive any significant importance or relevance, as in a real-life witness recognition event,

therefore their full attention was not aimed at the interruption. In terms of the surrounding

difficulties, all of the participants were not able to obtain a full, clear view of the target due to

desks and other classroom furnishings obstructing their view. This would account of the 1z)wer,

less accurate results on the looking, clothing, and appearance scales. Also, some of the


participants may have not put their full effort into filling out the questionnaire, which would

negatively influence the results.

If this experiment were to be attempted again, one suggestion would be to make the

questionnaire all multiple choice - recognition answers due to the fact that they decrease any

possibility for bias because they clearly have a right or wrong answer and no decisions are

necessary for the experimenter which lessens the chance of experimenter bias. Also, difficulties

were found in regards to question #22, the describe the target fully question, in that, most of the

answers given were simply restatements of the previous asked for information with relatively no

newly recalled information given. I would suspect that the participants merely flipped back in the

questionnaire to obtain such details so the question arises, do they deserve new marks for the

same details given? Also this question did not readily fit into any one of the six scales so it was

difficult to account fairly for in the total score. Overall this question presented the possibility for

bias in that, it allowed for the possibility of gaining more marks by simply restating the

preexisting details. In the future, this question should be omitted or reworded to exclude the

inclusion of details already asked for or given. The only way this question could be relevant

would be to use it as a secondary indicator of accuracy, separate from the original score however,

the repetitiveness of the details given makes this also a potential for bias.

The only significant difference that was found was within the looking scale, in that

females were more accurate when viewing another female. The question becomes why was this

the only significant difference found? One possible explanation that can be explored rests in

evolution theory, in that females when viewing another female, view the other female as

prospective competition for a mate, this results in increased attention being paid to the

competition. However, this statistically significant finding may just be the result of having

overall more female participants then male and having 2 female targets as opposed to having only

1 male target.


References

Adderly, Brenda D. (1999). Stay Sharp! Essence, 29, 34-36.

Callaghan, A. D., Fallon, Li., Judy, S.E., Lucas, S.A., & Weiler, B.W. (n.d.) Metamemory as a

Function of Gender-Related Stimuli. University of Florida. Retrieved November 4, 2002, from

http .//www.p sych ufi edul---levy19 6_4 .html

Dobson, Matthew, & Markham, Roslyn (1992). Individual Differences in Anxiety Level and

Eyewitness Memory. Journal of General Psychology, 119, 343-351.

Dobson, Matthew, & Markham, Roslyn (1993). Imagery Ability and Source Monitoring:

Implications for Eyewitness Memory. British Journal of Psychology, 84, 111-119.

Durham, Marcus D., & Dane, Francis C. (1999). Juror Knowledge of Eyewitness Behavior:

Evidence for the Necessity of Expert Testimony. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 14,

299-309.

Guenther, R. Kim. (1998). Human Cognition. Hamlin University. Upper Saddle River, New

Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Kebbell, Mark R., & Giles, David C. (2000). Some Experimental Influences of Lawyers'

Complicated Questions on Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. The Journal of Psychology,

134, 129-139.

Kebbell, Mark R., & Wagstaff, Graham F. (1996). The Influence of Item Difficulty on the

Relationship Between Eyewitness Confidence and Accuracy. British Journal of Psychology, 87,

653-663.

Lindholm, Torun, & Christianson, Svan-Ake (1998). Intergroup Biases and Eyewitness

Testimony. Journal of Social Psychology, 138, 710-724.

Loftus, Elizabeth F. (1979). Eyewitness Testimony. England: Harvard University Press.


MacCoby, Eleanor Emmons, & Jacklin, Carol Nagy (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences.

California: Stanford University Press.

Miller, D.W. (2000). Looking Askance at Eyewitness Testimony. Chronicle of Higher

Education, 46(25), A19-A21.

Soojin, Susan Oh (2000). Explanation for the Gender Differences in Expressing Emotions.

Retrieved November 2, 2002, from littp://ccatsas.upenii.edu/plc/conununicationisoojinInn

Widen, Sherri C. & Russell, James A. (2002). Gender and Preschoolers' Perception of Emotion.

Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 48(3), 248-262. {EMOTION}

Wright, Daniel B., Self, Gail, & Justice, Chris (2000). Memory Conformity: Exploring

Misinformation Effects when Presented by Another Person. British Journal of Psychology, 91(2),

189-203.

Yarmey, Daniel A. (1979). The Psychology of Eyewitness Testimony. New York: The Free

Press.

tn Rll nd Rntn Dffrn Btn l nd Fl l . r l nvrt ll - Algoma

Documents