![]() We examined whether or not anchoring, unpacking, and summing techniques that have been used in time estimation research can be helpful for decreasing the bias found in eyewitness estimates of crime duration. ![]() Given that bias exists in estimates of duration, many attempts have been made to reduce this bias using techniques such as anchoring (i.e., supplying participants with a reference duration König, 2005 Furnham and Boo, 2011), unpacking (i.e., breaking an event into its component parts Tversky and Koehler, 1994 Kruger and Evans, 2004) and summing (i.e., adding together the component parts Forsyth and Burt, 2008). For example, task characteristics, such as whether the task is relatively short or long, can influence bias, with shorter tasks tending be overestimated and longer tasks tending to be underestimated ( Bird, 1927 Yarmey, 2000 Roy and Christenfeld, 2008 Lejeune and Wearden, 2009 Tobin and Grondin, 2009). In support, reviews of studies in the time estimation literature indicate that most estimates of past task duration in general are inaccurate and easily biased ( Wallace and Rabin, 1960 Fraisse, 1963 Ornstein, 1969 Poynter, 1989 Block and Zakay, 1997 Roy et al., 2005 Buehler et al., 2010 Halkjelsvik and Jørgensen, 2012). Overall, research in the field of witness testimony indicates that estimates of crime duration may often be biased but, unfortunately, this bias might not be recognized by the witness or the jury. Further, juries do not seem to consider the fact that witnesses are often incorrect in their estimates of duration ( Schmechel et al., 2006). Research also suggests the longer a witness thinks about an event, the longer the estimate they may give ( Zakay and Tsal, 1989). Research suggests that witnesses may often overestimate actual duration ( Loftus and Doyle, 1987 Loftus et al., 1987) and that duration estimates can be influenced by wording, with shorter estimates given when actions are described in terms of quick movement ( Burt and Popple, 1996). Yet, objective estimates of crime length are typically not available, and thus, investigations may have to rely on a witness’ estimates of duration. ![]() In a study of witnesses of armed bank robberies, robbery duration (as captured by video surveillance) was positively associated with the accuracy of offender descriptions given by witnesses ( Fahsing et al., 2004). Indeed, duration can predict witness memory report accuracy. Among eyewitness memory experts, 81% agreed that events are less well remembered the less time a witness has to observe the event ( Kassin et al., 2001). Duration is also used as an indicator of likely memory accuracy. Time estimates for an event can help the criminal justice system, especially jurors and judges, to verify events and alibis ( Loftus et al., 1987). One important aspect of a crime that witnesses are frequently called on to remember is the duration of criminal events (e.g., the length of time that the perpetrator was in view of the witness length of time that the crime lasted Flowe et al., 2011). Witness testimony plays an important role at every step of the criminal justice process. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |