Completed before 11:59 PM February 25th

User Generated

Fghqrag5646

Writing

PSYC 1101

Georgia Highlands College

Description

Major Assignment - Eyewitness Identification

Scenario: You are a defense attorney and an eyewitness to the crime in question has given testimony identifying your client as the culprit. Given what you know about effortful vs. automatic encoding, state-dependent and mood-congruent memory, interference, and the constructive nature of memory (including misinformation, imagination, and source amnesia effects), how would you challenge the validity and reliability of that eyewitness testimony? What arguments would you use to confront the witness in your cross-examination?

Step 1:. Read ONE of the following four research articles and summarize the article's predictions (hypotheses), methods, and findings.

Step 2: Answer the questions in the Scenario above. Use the research article you've chosen, as well as material from the rest of this lesson, to support your conclusions.

Research Article #1: Misinformation Effect https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-based-justice-acknowledges-our-corrupt-memories/

Research Article #2: Flashbulb memories https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-09/flashbulb-memories-of-dramatic-events-such-as-9-11-arent-as-accurate-as-believed

Research Article #3: How accurate are our memories of 9/11? https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/911-memory-accuracy/

Research Article #4: Eyewitness identification https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/

Your brief summary and evaluation of the reliability of eyewitness testimony (integrating the above-mentioned issues) should be 2-3 pages (double-spaced, 1-inch margins, 12-point font). See the "More About the Eyewitness Identification Assignment" page and the "Eyewitness Identification APA Checklist" for more resources and information. Submit your write-up in the "Major Assignment - Eyewitness Identification" Assignment Tool.

Be sure to check the course Calendar for due dates.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Writing Rubric Objective/C riteria Superior (A) 20 points Good (B) 16 points Acceptable (C) Need Improvement 14 points (D) Failing (F) Not 10 points Submitted 12 points Course Learning Outcome (20 points) (16 points) (14 points) (12 points) (10 points) Paper demonstrates mastery of the objective and critical understanding of the topic Paper demonstrates above average understanding of the objective and a good understanding of the topic Paper demonstrates moderate understanding of the objective and an average level of thought about the topic. Paper demonstrates that student had only partial understanding of the objective, or student demonstrates a lack of thought or consideration of the issue Shows obvious lack of effort or comprehension (20 points) (16 points) (14 points) (12 points) (10 points) Paper is specific, mostly well-supported, shows original thought, and addresses all assignment requirements. Sources are cited correctly. Paper is general, somewhat wellsupported, and addresses most assignment requirements. Sources are referenced. Paper is vague, unsupported, does not address all assignment requirements and no outside works are cited. Paper is off-topic, does not address assignment. (20 points) (16 points) (14 points) (12 points) (10 points) Paper was submitted by due date and did not require further work. Paper was submitted by due date and resubmitted with changes by due date, if required by instructor. Paper was submitted by Paper is late submitted due date but could not via assignment tool be opened. Resubmitted via assignment tool. Paper is highly specific, well-supported, shows Specificity/Ori original thought, and ginality addresses all assignment requirements. Sources are cited correctly. Participation 0 points Paper is late.and was submitted via email. (0 points) (0 points) (0 points) (20 points) (12 points) (10 points) Paper makes Paper makes some Paper makes vague vividly clear references reference to readings or reference to readings or to readings or other other relevant sources. other relevant sources. relevant sources. Paper makes no reference to readings or other relevant sources. Paper makes no reference to readings, and strongly suggest that reading assignments have not been completed. (20 points) (16 points) (14 points) (12 points) (10 points) Writing is wellorganized, appropriate, unified, and error-free. APA citation and format are perfect. Writing is mostly organized and unified, with few errors. A few APA citation and format errors. Writing is somewhat organized and unified, with some errors. Several APA citation and format errors. Writing is poorly organized and unified, with many errors. Numerous APA citation and format errors. Writing is not organized or unified; errors impair communication. Use citation other than APA. Overall Superior (A) Good (B) Acceptable (C) Needs Improvement Failing (F) Not Score 90 or more 80 or more 70 or more (D) 50 or more Submitted Focus Use of Language (16 points) (14 points) 60 or more (0 points) (0 points) 0 or more
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer

This work is complete! 😎 Please see the attached response (and outline) and hit me up if you need assistance with edits.
Attached.

Running Head: MAJOR ASSIGNMENT

1

Major Assignment:
Eyewitness Identification
Student’s Name
Professor
Course
Date

EYEWITNESS IDENTIFICATION

2

Eyewitness Identification
Part I: Article Summary
Arkowitz and Lilienfeld (2010)’s article on “Why Science Tells Us Not to Rely on
Eyewitness Accounts” predicts that eye-witnesses can sometimes be wrong, and in some cases,
more than one eye witness may have similar biases leading to false witnessing and sometimes
the conviction of innocent people from a police lineup. The research method used is a metaanalysis. Literature review seems to be the main method, given that at the end of the article, the
author mentions that there was an original form of an article which was entitled “Do the “eyes”
have it?” The fact that the information is collected from the original research makes it a
literature review. The original article was also a literature review since it brings in case law and
some other literature, including the literature review of case law, statements th...

Similar Content

Related Tags