PSYC 376 Unit 8

Home > Preview

The flashcards below were created by user Csouch on FreezingBlue Flashcards.


  1. Define hearsay.
    An out-of-court statement (1) tendered to prove the truth of its contents (1).
  2. Why is an out of court statement tendered to prove the truth of the contents considered inherently unreliable?
    The declarant was not under oath or solemn affirmation when the statement was made. (1) The trier of fact cannot observe the demeanor of the declarant to assist in determining the credibility of the statement. (1) There is no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. (1)
  3. The principled approach to the admission of hearsay evidence holds that hearsay may be admitted if it is ________________ and ______________.
    Necessary and reliable
  4. Bruck, Ceci, and Francoeur (1999) and Warren and Woodall (1999) studied participants’ ability to recall prior conversations with children. In both studies there was as substantial amount of information lost. That is, participants remembered less information than children reported. The amount of loss, however, was larger in the Bruck et al. study than in the Warren and Woodall study. What methodological difference could account for the differences? Describe the differences and explain how they might explain the different amounts of information loss.
    In Bruck et al participants were mothers while in Warren and Woodall participants were professional forensic interviewers. (2) Professional interviewers may be better trained to recall the content of conversations with children (1).

     

    In Bruck et al there was a three day delay between the interview with the child and participants reports of what the child said whereas in Warren and Woodall, participants reported what the child had said immediately after the interview (2). Normal forgetting could account for the greater loss of information in Bruck et al compared to Warren and Woodall (1).
  5. Pathak and Thompson (1999) studied how hearsay witnesses and mock jurors evaluate the content of children’s reports. Describe the methodology used in this study.
    Children participated in a memory experiment. While the child was alone in the room a janitor entered and either played with a doll or cleaned a doll. (1) About one hour later, children were interviewed either suggestively or in a neutral way. (1) In the suggestive condition, it was strongly suggested that the janitor cleaned the doll for children who saw him play with it or that he played with the doll for children who saw him clean it. (1) Adult hearsay witnesses watched one of the videotapes of the child being interviewed and were recorded answering questions about what the child had said and what they inferred the child had seen (1). The videotapes of the hearsay witnesses were shown to mock jurors. (1)
  6. Bruck et al (1999) as well as Warren and Woodall (1999) concluded that hearsay witnesses recall very little about the surface structure of an interview with a child and often conceal the quality of the interview. However, Pathak and Thompson (1999) reported that hearsay witnesses could discriminate between neutral and suggestive interviews and this discrimination could be discerned by mock jurors who heard the hearsay witness. How can you reconcile these two conclusions?
    First, in both Bruck et al. (1999) and Warren and Woodall (1999) the hearsay witness interviewed the child and then provided a hearsay report.(1) In Pathak and Thompson (1999) the hearsay witnesses listened to the child being interviewed by another person. (1) Fewer cognitive resources are required to listen to and remember the quality of an interview than to conduct an interview and remember its quality. (1)

    Second, in Bruck et al. and Warren and Woodall the hearsay witness was reporting their own interview whereas in Pathak and Thompson the hearsay witnesses listened to another person interview the child. There may be a bias to recall the interview it in a more positive light. (1)

    Third, the interviews in Pathak and Thompson (1999) were very strongly suggestive, with several techniques combined to elicit inaccurate reports from children (1) whereas in Bruck et al. (1999) and Warren and Woodall (1999) the interviews were not as strongly misleading. (1) In the former study, the suggestive nature of the interview may have been so patent that it could not be overlooked. (1)
  7. According to Warren, Nunez, Keeney, Buck, and Smith (2002), why might a gist hearsay witness be seen as credible?
    Gist testimony does not contain, for instance, hesitations, corrections, contradictions, and uninterpretable responses that may have been present in the child’s testimony (1). It is coherent and neatly packaged (1) and may be more believable
  8. Goodman, Myers, Qin, Quas, Castelli, Redlich, & Rogers (2006) reported an indirect effect of the way the child’s evidence was presented on trial outcome. Explain the pattern of data that led to this conclusion. Were mock jurors correct in their judgments of guilt?
    There was a negative correlation between trial condition and perceived credibility of the child (1) as well as sympathy towards the child.(1) There was a positive correlation between confidence in the defendant’s guilt and perceptions of child credibility (1) as well as sympathy towards the child. (1) However, confidence in defendant’s guilt is not the same as accurately identifying guilt and innocence. Jurors were not able to correctly vote guilty or not guilty in any of the trial conditions (1)
  9. According to Dunning (1999) calibration in hearsay research is concerned with what?
    b. Whether appropriate weight is given to hearsay evidence
  10. Why is hearsay evidence considered presumptively inadmissible?
    a. It is inherently unreliable
  11. If Karen comes to court to say that Gary told her that the front door of the house was locked at 8pm, is this hearsay?
    c. It depends on why Karen is giving the evidence
  12. What does it mean to say that a statement is “presumptively inadmissible?
    a. The statement may not be admitted as evidence
  13. Which legal case introduced the principled approach to the admission of hearsay evidence?
    c. R. v. Khan
  14. Who decides if hearsay evidence will be admitted at trial?
    c. The judge
  15. Over the years, the courts have provided examples of situations that would meet the test of reliability of hearsay evidence. Which of the following is not such an example?
    a. The child refuses to testify
  16. According to Goodman, Quas, Bulkley, and Shapiro (1999), what is the second most common in-court accommodation for child witnesses?
    a. Hearsay
  17. Why is it important for a hearsay witness to remember, verbatim, their conversation with the child complainant?
    c. It is needed to assess the weight that should be given to the child’s evidence.
  18. In a study by Bruck, Ceci, and Francoeur (1999) mothers interviewed their children about a recent play session. Three days later they were asked to recall what their child had said. Mothers recalled only 16% of the ____________.
    c. questions they asked to elicit information from their child
  19. In a study by Bruck, Ceci, and Francoeur (1999) mothers interviewed their children about a recent play session. Three days later they were asked to recall what their child had said. How would you describe the information that was reported by mothers?
    c. It was very accurate but very incomplete
  20. Bruck, Ceci, and Francoeur (1999) studied mothers’ memories for conversations with their children. There are several reasons that mothers’ reports of conversations with their children may not be representative of adults’ memories of conversations with children. Which of the following is not described in your course readings as one of those reasons?
    b. Mothers are not professionally trained to recall conversations with children
  21. Warren and Woodall (1999) studied how well professional forensic interviewers remember their interviews with children. Professional interviewers were reasonably accurate when they reported
    a. the gist of the information reported by the child
  22. In Bruck, Ceci, and Francoeur (1999) as well as Warren and Woodall (1999) participants made systematic errors in how they recalled the questions they asked children. What was the nature of the errors?
    d. Participants recalled that their questions were more open than they really were
  23. Lamb, Orbach, Sternberg, Hershkowitz, and Horowitz (2000) studied professional forensic interviewers’ ability to accurately and comprehensively record the contents of interviews with children. They compared taped recordings of the interviews with interviewers’ notes that were taken during the interview. What did they find?
    a. Interviewers recorded fewer than half of their questions
  24. Across experiments on adults’ memory for conversations with children, there are more errors in recall of _________________ than any other type of error.
    b. Questions interviewers asked to elicit information from children
  25. Buck, Warren, and Brigham (2004) investigated whether mock jurors could distinguish a good interview from a bad interview if the evidence came from a hearsay witness. Three interviews were created and presented through a hearsay witness to mock jurors. Mock jurors rated the interviews as follows
    d. all interviews were rated similarly
  26. In Buck, Warren, and Brigham (2004) mock jurors who read a transcript of an interview with a child provided higher ratings of the child in which condition?
    a. Good interview
  27. According to Pathak and Thompson (1999), mock jurors were _________ hearsay witnesses at determining what happened during a previous play session when children were interviewed suggestively.
    c. the same as
  28. In Warren, Nunez, Keeney, Buck, and Smith (2002), Experiment 1, two true activities and one false activity were reported by children. Mock jurors were presented with the child’s report in one of three ways: gist hearsay witness, verbatim hearsay witness, or the child him/herself. In which condition were mock jurors most and least likely to believe that the false event had occurred?
    d. Most in the gist hearsay condition, least in the verbatim hearsay and child conditions
  29. In Warren, Nunez, Keeney, Buck, and Smith (2002), Experiment 1, mock jurors were presented with the child’s report in one of three ways: gist hearsay witness, verbatim hearsay witness, or the child him/herself. In which condition was the interview with the child judged to be most spontaneous?
    a. Gist hearsay condition
  30. Warren, Nunez, Keeney, Buck, and Smith (2002), ran two experiments to study perceptions of child witnesses and adult hearsay witnesses. Experiment 1 was an analogue study that considered reports of a prior play session while Experiment 2 was based on an actual forensic interview. Which of the following statements best describes the data from these two experiments?
    c. There were fewer differences in Experiment 2 compared to Experiment 1, but the effects that emerged in Experiment 2 were similar to effects observed in Experiment 1
  31. When considering all of the results reported by Warren, Nunez, Keeney, Buck, and Smith (2002) in which way would a defence attorney want the child’s evidence to be presented?
    c. The child him or herself
  32. Myers, Redlich, Goodman, Prizmich, & Imwinkelreid (1999) interviewed actual jurors following trials involving allegations of child abuse. They were interested in jurors’ impressions of the children and of the hearsay witnesses. Compared to impressions of the children, impressions of the hearsay witnesses were ______________.
    a. more positive
  33. Goodman, Myers, Qin, Quas, Castelli, Redlich, & Rogers (2006) conducted one of the most realistic studies on the question of whether mock jurors were able to discriminate children’s accurate and inaccurate testimony. What did they conclude?
    d. Jurors could not discern true from false testimony in any of the conditions.

Card Set Information

Author:
Csouch
ID:
330387
Filename:
PSYC 376 Unit 8
Updated:
2017-04-14 23:07:30
Tags:
essay
Folders:

Description:
exam
Show Answers:

Home > Flashcards > Print Preview