Provide a thorough summary of an experimental procedure for studying a psychological factor that contributes to wrongful convictions. (2) Summarize how the procedure has been applied in five studies. (3) Provide a critique of the procedure….

QUESTION

(1) Provide a thorough summary of an experimental procedure for studying a psychological factor
that contributes to wrongful convictions.
(2) Summarize how the procedure has been applied in five studies.
(3) Provide a critique of the procedure.

What are some experimental procedures that would be suitable for the critique?
You can use any procedure for conducting experiments on a psychological factor that contributes to
wrongful conviction. Here are a few suggestions:
• Eyewitness Identification
• Suggestibility in Investigative Interviews
• The Misinformation Effect
• False Confessions (e.g., the ALT key method)
• Plea Bargaining
• Fingerprint Comparison
• Bitemark Comparison

Does it have to be an experimental procedure?
Yes. The procedure must be used in experimental research. In an experiment, participants are
randomly assigned to groups under controlled conditions. Correlational or archival studies do not
quality as experiments.

How much detail should I give in the general summary of the procedure?
You should provide enough detail so that the procedure could be implemented by someone who has
never heard of the procedure before.

What details should I report in the five summarized studies?
Summarize the study rationale, make note of any variations from the typical application of the
procedure (if any), and report the study findings.

What should be the focus of my critique?
Highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the procedure. Is the procedure practical to implement? Is
it ecologically valid? Does the procedure have any other limitations? Recall from the previous
assessment that identifying a weakness is not sufficient. You must also explain why it is a weakness.

ANSWER

 Experimental Procedures for Studying Psychological Factors Contributing to Wrongful Convictions: A Critical Review

Introduction

The study of psychological factors contributing to wrongful convictions is crucial for understanding the errors and biases that can occur within the criminal justice system. In this essay, we will explore various experimental procedures used to investigate these factors and assess their strengths and weaknesses. Specifically, we will focus on eyewitness identification, suggestibility in investigative interviews, the misinformation effect, false confessions (e.g., the ALT key method), plea bargaining, fingerprint comparison, and bitemark comparison.

Summary of the Experimental Procedure

Eyewitness Identification: This procedure involves presenting participants with a staged event and then using lineup identification procedures to assess their ability to accurately identify the perpetrator. Factors such as lineup composition, lineup instructions, and feedback can be manipulated to investigate the reliability of eyewitness identification.

Suggestibility in Investigative Interviews: This procedure examines the extent to which questioning techniques used during investigative interviews can influence the accuracy of witness recall. Researchers employ controlled interview protocols to assess the impact of leading questions, misinformation, and other suggestive techniques on memory recall.

The Misinformation Effect: This procedure explores how exposure to misleading information can distort individuals’ memory of an event. Participants are typically presented with an event and later provided with misinformation about specific details. The extent to which participants incorporate the misinformation into their memory is then assessed.

False Confessions: The ALT key method is an experimental procedure designed to investigate the factors that contribute to false confessions. Participants are subjected to a simulated interrogation where manipulations such as false evidence, promises of leniency, and psychological pressure are used to elicit a false confession.

Plea Bargaining: This procedure examines how different factors influence defendants’ decision-making in plea bargaining situations. Researchers create hypothetical scenarios that simulate plea bargaining negotiations and manipulate variables such as strength of evidence, potential sentence, and attorney advice to assess their impact on defendants’ plea decisions.

Fingerprint Comparison: Experimental procedures in fingerprint comparison involve presenting participants with pairs of fingerprints and assessing their ability to accurately match them. Factors such as clarity of prints, training and expertise of participants, and presence of contextual information can be investigated.

Bitemark Comparison: This procedure examines the accuracy and reliability of bitemark comparisons in forensic investigations. Researchers use mock bite mark cases and present experts with pairs of bite mark impressions to determine the level of agreement and potential sources of error.

Critique of the Procedures

While these experimental procedures have contributed valuable insights into the psychological factors underlying wrongful convictions, they are not without limitations. Firstly, the ecological validity of some procedures may be questioned, as they often involve simulated or laboratory-based scenarios that may not fully capture the complexities of real-world criminal investigations. Additionally, the generalizability of findings from controlled experiments to actual cases may be limited.

Moreover, the ethical implications of some procedures, such as inducing false confessions or presenting misleading information, raise concerns about potential harm to participants. Researchers must carefully balance the need for experimental control with ethical considerations.

Furthermore, the reliance on trained participants or experts in some procedures may not fully reflect the varied levels of expertise and experience found in real-world criminal justice settings. This limitation raises questions about the generalizability of findings to practitioners working in the field.

In conclusion, experimental procedures have significantly contributed to our understanding of the psychological factors contributing to wrongful convictions. However, it is important to recognize the limitations of these procedures, such as their ecological validity, ethical considerations, and generalizability. Future research should aim to bridge the gap between controlled laboratory experiments and real-world applications to provide more comprehensive insights into the complexities of the criminal justice system.