Talk:Eyewitness memory

To do
refs need sorting - i've just provided links to some journal articles

Nk.sheridan    Talk  22:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Face Recognition
 * confirmation bias
 * weapon focus
 * role of confidence see
 * role of conformity see

Plan for Improvement
We will be editing this article in stages until October 21st as a project for our Cognitive Psychology class at Davidson College. We hope to improve the organization of this article by combining a few of the subsections to better direct the reader. In doing so, we want to arrange the current subtopics in order of occurrence (interference, mental state, weapon focus and the other race effect during the event; confidence, mug-shot searches, the misinformation effect, and facial recognition during the testimony, after the event). We also want to add a few sections focusing on 1) effective procedures for line-up and interrogation, 2) bias, and 3)the influence of age and intellectual ability of the testifier. Finally, we will include a section indicating the methods of psychological research used in studying eyewitness memory. This will be helpful for the reader to understand how the psychologist arrived at their significant conclusions.

In the procedure for line-ups and interrogration, we will use articles by Steblay, N. K.et al.1 and Fisher, R. et al. P.2 to explain the correct procedures that an interrogator should follow. We will use real testimonies to provide examples of how false testimonies occur and how they can be prevented.

In the bias category, we will use an article by Kopietz, R. et al.3 to identify how bias can play a role in false eyewitness testimonies. We will address various sources of bias including racial bias and a cowitness' liking of a suspect.

In the influence of age and intellectual ability of the testifier category, we will use an article by Ternes, M., & Yuille, J. C.4 to help us explain eyewitness memory as it pertains to testifiers of different ages and intelligence levels. We will expand on the child eyewitness testimony category as well to make the accounts more complete.

We welcome any comments and suggestions.

Sources:
1Steblay, N. K., Dietrich, H. L., Ryan, S. L., Raczynski, J. L., & James, K. A. (2011). Sequential lineup laps and eyewitness accuracy. Law and Human Behavior, 35(4), 262-274. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9236-2

2Fisher, R. P., & Schreiber, N. (2007). Interview protocols for improving eyewitness memory. In M. P. Toglia, J. Read, D. F. Ross, R. L. Lindsay, M. P. Toglia, J. Read, ... R. L. Lindsay (Eds.), The handbook of eyewitness psychology, Vol I: Memory for events (pp. 53-80). Mahwah, NJ US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.

314.	Kopietz, R., Echterhoff, G., Niemeier, S., Hellmann, J. H., & Memon, A. (2009). Audience-congruent biases in eyewitness memory and judgment: Influences of a co-witness’ liking for a suspect. Social Psychology, 40(3), 138-149. doi:10.1027/1864-9335.40.3.138

410.	Ternes, M., & Yuille, J. C. (2008). Eyewitness memory and eyewitness identification performance in adults with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Applied Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 21(6), 519-531. doi:10.1111/j.1468-3148.2008.00425.x

Blford (talk) 21:42, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Tamara Hill (talk) 23:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Sentence doesn't make sense
The following sentence under Photographic Memory:

"It is also hypothesized that eidetic imagery is not exactly related to memory and improve recall for visual details. If this is true, photographic memory is not particularly in the courtroom, which could explain the general failure to detect its existence in adults."

doesn't make sense. I would edit it, but I'm not sure what is tring to be conveyed. Should the first sentence have an 's' after 'improve'? In the second sentence there appears to be a word missing after 'particularly'. Is the missing word 'useful'? Since I'm not sure, I didn't want to edit it.Van Vidrine (talk) 19:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The article cited (Brady et al. 2008) for these sentences doesn't seem to be particularly related to what it states here, as well as it not making much sense. The article in question seems to be looking into the visual capacity of memory. This paper should be more thoroughly reviewed in regards to this section on photographic memory. FranGleisner (talk) 27 March 2012. (UTC)

Suggestions for changes
For the section on challenges of identifying faces some information on face attractiveness could be added. Research has shown that high and low attractive faces are remembered more often than medium attractive faces. HalimahMohammed (talk) 04:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

1.1.2 Other-race effect
This section points to the natural shortcuts our minds make when processing novel information, with regard to race. However, it should be noted that this phenomena is not limited to race. Stereotypes of any kind (whether they be related to age, gender, etc.) can affect the encoding of information at the time of the event. For example, if one is held at gunpoint by two individuals, one of whom is a man and the other is a woman wearing a hat, the victim may quickly fall back on the belief that men are more likely to be aggressors and consequently encode the situation as two male assailants (potentially yielding problematic effects in the process of identifying the assailants later on). I propose this information be added after the following sentence: "Perception may affect the immediate encoding of these unreliable notions due to prejudices, which can influence the speed of processing and classification of racially ambiguous targets." Sowallabear (talk) 23:26, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1.1.3 - Stress and trauma
The role of the amygdala should be included in this section. It should be explicitly stated that stress hormones released by the amygdala promote the consolidation of emotional memories. Sowallabear (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1.1.3.3 - Mood-congruency effect
I am not entirely convinced by this paragraph's assertion that a witness' ability to recall may be compromised by the incongruent levels of stress between the time of encoding and the time of retrieval. Recalling the details of a traumatic event or seeing the perpetrator in a photographic or physical line-up can be highly stressful for an individual. Sowallabear (talk) 21:22, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1.1.4 - Weapon focus
I was initially confused by the following sentences: "When participants were watching a slideshow, and were seeing an unusual stimulus item, their reaction times were slower (regardless whether the stimulus was dangerous) in comparison to reaction times for more frequent stimulus. When the item was dangerous (i.e. a weapon), participants had a lower accuracy and confidence than the control group's." I had to find the reference and read the study before I understood the sentences above. It should be made clear that the reaction time was measured on a secondary task, and accuracy and confidence refers to recognition of the target. Sowallabear (talk) 22:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC) Sowallabear (talk)

1.2.1- Misinformation Effect
I find these few sentences very confusing "In their studies, many researchers use eyewitnesses to study retrieval-blocking effects, which interfere with a witness' ability to recall information.[27] Misleading information prior to the event can also influence misinformation effects. However, retrieval-blocking methods can counteract misleading information in most cases. In addition, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, more significant and accurate testimonies can be produced." What retrieval-blocking methods can counteract misleading information? Is there a citation for this? Also, when eyewitnesses are given warning to avoid misinformation, this does not increase the accuracy of testimony. How would eyewitnesses know which information was false? What is helpful, and what this sentence may be referring to, is in a line up clarifying that the criminal may or may not be in the line up, so all of the options may be false. But simply asking someone to avoid misinformation is not enough. Once again I am not sure what the original author is referring to, and I would like a citation. I recommend these couple sentences are removed. Annasjenkins (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins


 * I agree that the second half of the paragraph is pretty confusing. It seems like the original author wanted to include details about studies that explain specifically how and why a witness' ability to recall information is compromised. This is a good idea, but the way it is currently written is confusing. It may be helpful to replace these sentences with concrete examples of what police officers can do to prevent the misinformation effect, as well as concrete examples of actions that police officers should avoid (i.e. actions that would increase the misinformation effect). Psy250 jes85 (talk) 18:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the response above. There are plenty of real world examples that are somewhat common knowledge. It could also be useful to link an example of a news article where an eye-witness testimony was false or where police took inappropriate action when conducting a line up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertrohner (talk • contribs) 22:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

2.2.4. - Source and Verb Tense
The first sentence, "An alteration of context was found to be one of the most important predictors of recognition accuracy," seems to be referencing Smith, or some other source, and deserves a citation. Also, can it be worded in a more active verb tense? Kvadla (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2.1 - Lineups
In the general explanation of lineup methods, it might be worth adding that lineups can be conducted via a video array as well as with photos or a live group. Also, the addition of links to pages explaining "perpetrator (vs suspect)" and "recognition (vs recall)" might aid understanding of these sections but such pages don't exist. Consider creating these pages? Emountier (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2.1.1. - Police Role in Lineup
In line 6 of this section there is an unclear sentence: "Feedback can produce a false confidence in the witness' selection". I read this as "Giving eyewitnesses affirmative feedback can increase their confidence int heir selection" bu am unfamiliar with what the source actually says about the effects of feedback; this should be reviewed. Emountier (talk) 20:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2.1.2 - Style of Lineup
A better explanation of absolute and relative judgements should be made - it should be clear that a relative judgement means that the eyewitness is choosing the lineup member that looks most like the offender compared to the others, while during an absolute judgement the eyewitness is comparing each lineup member to their memory of the event. For details see: Wells, G. L. (1993). What do we know about eye witness identification? American Psychologist, 14, 89-103. Daronsen (talk) 23:02, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I have issue with the following sentence contained within this section: "Police tend to use simultaneous lineups because they result in more correct identifications, although recently researchers have urged police to use sequential lineups as they result in less incorrect identifications." Sequential lineups may have been preferred historically, seeing as it does not rely on referential judgment. However, recent data suggests the preference for sequential lineups over simultaneous lineups may not be empirically supported. Individuals who participate in sequential lineups are less likely to make a selection at all, regardless if the selection is accurate or not. This suggests the sequential lineup fosters a more conservative shift in criterion to make a selection rather than an increased ability to pick the true perpetrator. Consequently, further research is needed before offering recommendations to police departments. As such, I suggest removing the sentence outlined above and replacing it with the information detailed within this paragraph. Citation: Kornell, N. (2014). Should Police Lineups Be Sequential or Simultaneous? Psychology Today. Retrieved from . Sowallabear (talk) 21:01, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

3- Child testimony
I suggest in this paragraph we clearly state that children are more suggestible than adults, particularly before the age of 5. The suggestibility in regards to intellectual ability is mentioned in the paragraph above, yet not in this section. In conjunction with the paragraph implying that children may have photographic memory, the lack of this statement makes in ambiguous just how unreliable child testimony can be. The section on child testimony also mentions that child have good memory for personal events, such as genital contact. I find this statement problematic because of the many cases where children, through prodding from a psychologist or techniques like hypnosis, falsely remember experiencing sexual abuse. To imply that their memory would be better for an even such as this is troublesome, when memories for such events have shown to be false in children in several court cases. I recommend removing this statement about genital contact and stating that there have been several cases of false memory in child sexual abuse cases. Annasjenkins (talk) 14:21, 20 April 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins

I think it is important to explicitly state the threshold in which children are more susceptible (~5 years old). I also agree that the statement suggesting children possess good memory for personal events (i.e. genital contact) is problematic. I like your revision, but to take it one step further, I would create a subsection for these court cases you mention to provide the reader with concrete evidence and instances when this is simply not the case. Jmt59 (talk) 17:29, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

5 - Photographic Memory (Eidetic Memory)
- The sentences at the end of the article need to be referenced, and the last paragraph. It would be useful to expand on the evidence for flaws in superior photographic memory to give a fuller picture of both sides of the debate. This section could also include information on Iconic Memory. Also, see Neisser (1967) for original account of Iconic Memory.

FranGleisner (talk) 27 March 2012. (UTC)

I find this paragraph misleading, as there is little evidence for photographing memory. For example, the sentence " these mental photographs may be comparable to presenting a real tangible photograph of the event witnessed" implies some eyewitnesses may have memories comparable to photographs--but research has shown memories are not exact replicas of events. The paragraph does go on to mention that photographic memories are as vulnerable to mistakes as mnemonic memories are, but it is confusing why photographic memories are included at all, if they are vulnerable to distortion. Similarly, this paragraph states "it is also hypothesized that eidetic imagery is not exactly related to memory and improves recall for visual details. If this is true, photographic memory is not particularly useful in the courtroom," but if evidence shows photographic memories are not useful in the courtroom, I again wonder why a whole section is devoted to them on this wikipedia page. Like the whole paragraph, this sentence is also confusing because it implies photographic memories exist. I recommend removing this paragraph from the page. At the very least, I recommend removing any mention of photographic memory and any implication that memories can be exact replicas of events. Annasjenkins (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins

I agree about removing the parts about photographic memory. This is very misleading about the ability of children and no reported cases of photographic memory exist. A better term might be eidetic memory. Cases of this visually guided memory have been reported and is more common in children than young adults. Cproctor23 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2016 (UTC)Cproctor23

2.2 Interviews
At the end of the first paragraph, it is stated that "hypnosis is not an effective technique for retrieving inaccessible information because the amount of information reported would increase along with the amount of confabulation, possibly resulting in a false testimony." Hypnosis is not an effective technical because about of information would increase... this implies hypnosis allows people to regenerate lost memories which are accurate unless too much is generated. This is wrong--hypnosis is not an effective technique simply because it doesn't work. People in hypnosis imagine things so much these imaginings feel feel like memories. I recommend we either remove this sentence or state that "when prodded too much to remember something, people often fall upon false memories. This effect is also seen in hypnosis: when studies try so hard and are guided to remember something and they imaging something vividly and mistake it as a memory. Annasjenkins (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2016 (UTC)annasjenkins

I think you are including a very important idea about how people can be pressured into "creating" memories. There could be links to pages that discuss how people can have false memories when primed with leading materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robertrohner (talk • contribs) 22:52, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

1.2.1 - Misinformation Effect
Should be made more coherent - sentences don't seem to flow into one another, they're more like bullet points. Perhaps expanding on some of the ideas mentioned would make it easier to follow. Hsolomon89 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1.2.2 - Unconscious Transference
Could add other theories that explain unconscious transference besides familiarity, such as change blindness and source monitoring. Also, the Steblay, N, & Dysart, J. (2003) article that was cited doesn't seem to be correct - this article appears to be much more relevant: Godfrey, R. D., & Clark, S. E. (2010). Repeated eyewitness identification procedures: Memory, decision making, and probative value. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 241-258. Hsolomon89 (talk) 07:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

6.3 (6.31-6.31) Face overshadowing effect, Verbal overshadowing effect
I recommend moving these two sections to be under the Retrieval section, sub section Interviews. I make this recommendation because the face and verbal overshadowing effects occur primarily when describing visual observations; as such, the overshadowing effect is on eyewitness memories, not earwitness memories. A small portion of the verbal shadowing effect is on its effect on verbal memory; those few sentences make sense where they are in the article, and I would leave them.

In addition, I recommend explaining the cause of the face overshadowing effect. The process describing a face entails thinking about its features independently, but we process faces configurally (as a whole, encoding the features in relation to one another). This is why the process of describing the face alters our memory of it. I recommend we include this description at the end of the paragraph on face over shadowing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annasjenkins (talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

1.1.2 (1.1.2.1-1.1.2.3) Stress and Trauma
This section advocates for repression and contradicts itself with the flashbulb effect. Controversial arguments against ideas of repression are needed to expand the big picture. The section on psychogenic amnesia is largely incomplete; much can be expanded such as its symptoms and course, and its differences from organic amnesia (details from Richard McNally's 'Remembering Trauma' would be helpful). Statistics of studies were included but were largely incoherent and only served for further confusion. Flow and cohesion of points was lacking. Johunter (talk) 20:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

1.1.1 Challenges of identifying faces
The very first sentence "people struggle to identify faces..." doesn't make sense—for example, I have no trouble recognising my family either in person or from photos. This sentence needs to make it clear that people find it hard to correctly identify virtual strangers that they have seen once before e.g. at the scene of a crime. The second part of that sentence "a difficulty arising from the encoding of faces" could do with revision too—we have to encode faces or else we'd never recognise any of them. What I think this sentence means to say is that poor encoding of novel faces leads to difficulty identifying them later.

The second sentence "When participants..." also needs work. I think that it should start "in one study..." otherwise we don't know who "participants" refers to. Also, the study needs to be described more clearly. For example, what did participants do before being tested on the photos? What is meant by "they struggled to accurately identify the images..."? Surely people could have said that they were looking at an array of photos of faces. In short, there is ambiguity here. Also, I presume this section is describing the findings of the study already referenced in this section, but this needs to be made clear (with more citation links).

At the end of this paragraph, there are two more sentences that aren't as clear as they might be. The sentence which starts "Face-specific cognitive...." doesn't really make sense. I think what it is trying to say is that there is evidence that faces are processed holistically, which bears on how, for example, an EW would encode and recognise faces. The next sentence which starts "Unreliability of EW ID..." also needs revision. We don't know what "composite systems" are, and holistic processing of faces is not described at all either. Adding definitions for both of these concepts would help to convey the point I think is trying to be made here, which is that one of the problems with EW ID is that people are sometimes asked to help construct facial composite images of the perpetrator, which are necessarily constructed one feature at a time, in contrast to how we process real faces, which is more global.

I think the opening to the other-race effect paragraph could be clearer. It needs to make explicit that people are not worse at identifying faces of other races as being faces. Rather, they are worse at distinguishing between them, which may impair their ability to encode those other faces in detail, leading to lower performance in recognition tests of them.

The perceptual expertise account sentence needs tidying too. I think "with an increase" is a slightly misleading way to word it. Better something like "...due to our greater amount of exposure to faces of our own race..." Socio-cog account: what is meant by "over-focus" and how would that lead to better recognition of own race? The reference for the third hypothesis might be better placed (or additionally placed) after the sentence "...other races might not encode these same features"

It would be nice if there was a reference to back up the statement that most work has been done on African Americans and Caucasians.

The sentence beginning "In general, memory is an individual process..." doesn't make grammatical sense, and I couldn't fix this because I'm not sure what it is trying to say. It needs revision to improve clarity. A citation here would also be good. Also in the sentence about mono-racial EW, need to specify what is meant by "categorization"...of what? (presumably, race).

The final two sentences of this paragraph also need revision for clarity. For example, what are the "unreliable notions" being referred to? By prejudices, is it meant "activated racial stereotypes"? Is it "ambiguity" of facial recognition, or is it unreliability? Does "targets" mean faces? What "divergent strategies"? This little section needs to be unpacked more as it is currently a bit hard to follow, plus it needs citations.

MSanson435 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Primary introduction
Would be nice if there was a citation to support the frequent use of EW testimony by police, in courts etc. Need a citation to support the statement that the reliability of EW memory is sometimes questioned. Not sure describing EW memory as "volatile," perhaps a better word would be "fragile" Need citation for statement has long been speculated that mistaken EW ID plays key role in wrongful convictions. Need a citation for the Innocence Projects stats about the proportion of cases involving mistaken ID, also need to specify what "the 239" cases are, e.g. were they the 239 first DNA exonerations?

MSanson435 (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

2.1.5. Retrospective interference
Could expand on why retroactive interference is a problem and give examples. Information about suggestive police questioning and interrogator bias would fit better in another section, or a new section could be added to expand on this. Lieselm (talk) 10:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Example
I propose the inclusion of a real-world example (as its own independent section) to tie together multiple aspects of eyewitness memory and its fallacies. The case of Jennifer Thompson's false identification of Ronald Cotton as her rapist is well-publicized and entails many of the phenomena outlined in this article. Despite Jennifer's strong intent to study her rapist's features during the traumatic event for the purpose of identifying him afterward, she fell victim to encoding limitations at the time of the assault. Jennifer undoubtedly experienced a great degree of stress on the night of her assault with a knife pressed to her neck and a feeling of absolute powerlessness (see the section on weapon focus). “There in my memory, at the knife-edge of fear, time distorted” (Thompson-Cannino, Cotton & Torneo, 13). She also fell prey to factors after the incident that affected the accuracy of her recall. Even if memories are correctly encoded at the time of the event, interference and decay can alter these memories in negative ways. The simple passage of time entails memory loss, and any new information presented between the time of the crime and testimony can interfere with a witness’s recall. When Jennifer was asked to identify her perpetrator from a series of photographs, she was told by officers that she should not feel compelled to make an identification. However, Jennifer’s faith in the legal system led her to believe that the police must have had a suspect to warrant her participation in photographic identification. And when Jennifer selected the photo of Ronald, the police told her she did great. It should be noted the photograph of Jennifer's true rapist, Bobby Poole, was not included in the lineup. The positive feedback Jennifer received allowed her to begin incorporating details from the photograph into her memory of the attack. The fact that Jennifer took five minutes to study the pictures before she selected Ronald Cotton's photo also allowed Jennifer ample opportunity to encode Ronald's face as her assailant and thereby interfere with her original memory. The photographs were presented simultaneously, allowing Jennifer to compare the photographs to each other as opposed to her memory of the event. As a result, when she was later asked to choose her assailant from a physical line-up, Jennifer saw Ronald in her memory and thus chose him. The police further solidified her choice by telling her “We thought that might be the guy…it’s the same person you picked from the photos” (37). As a result, the authorities viewed Jennifer as the ideal eyewitness, one who was motivated to remember the face of her assailant during the event and subsequently confident in her identification of the target. However, the level of confidence in an eyewitness' recall is not associated with accuracy of identification. Unfortunately, the eyewitness' confidence in his or her recall is strongly associated with the jury's belief in the accuracy of the eyewitness' testimony, increasing the risk of assigning guilty verdicts to innocent individuals. Unconscious transference essentially contaminated Jennifer’s memory. Even after Jennifer learned of Ronald’s innocence, she still saw his face in her memory of the attack years later. It wasn’t until she met with Ronald face-to-face and he gave her his forgiveness did she begin to see Ronald for himself rather than as her assailant, thus beginning a remarkable and unexpected friendship.

Citation: Thompson-Cannino, Jennifer, Ronald Cotton, and Erin Torneo. Picking Cotton: Our Memoir of Injustice and Redemption. New York: St. Martin's, 2009. Print. Sowallabear (talk) 20:47, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that is a great example. I might expand on some of the details of the incident. For example, she took five minutes to study the pictures until she made a decision, which would have encoded Cotton's face and interfered with the retrieval process. Jh470 (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! I edited the paragraph to include your suggestion. Sowallabear (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. This is a good example, and a nice addition to the page. I thought of two things that might improve it.  First, I would pull out the language where you infuse yourself and emotion into the text. For example, "it is difficult to imagine the degree of stress" I would instead opt for something like "Jennifer was under a high degree of stress."  This is a personal opinion, but I think it would sound more professional without it.  Second, I might add something about how the jury perceives confident eye witnesses.  This may fit into your section or maybe it would be a nice addition to the confidence section.  I think it would interest readers to know that confidence of identification is not correlated with accuracy of identification, yet it is strongly correlated with jurors belief in the accuracy of the information. Thus confidence does not equate to accuracy but it does to guilty verdicts.

Best, Kmdoiron (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your feedback! I agree with both points you made, and have consequently edited the paragraph to reflect your suggestions. Sowallabear (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

It would be important to add to this information to the case of false identification with Ronald Cotton and Jennifer Thompson. When Ronald Cotton's case was tried with another victim, Bobby Poole was brought up to the stand to be asked if he had committed the assault. Jennifer was in the court room when Bobby Poole was on the stand and she still did not recognize him as her attacker. This adds to the point that Jennifer had Ronald Cotton's image ingrained in her memory as the person who raped her and did not recognize her actual rapist even when he was in the same room as her. HalimahMohammed (talk) 05:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Unconscious Transference
I think that the overall material in this section is very good but I felt it took me a few reads to fully comprehend the first couple of sentences. I think you could possibly make the definition of unconscious transference more explicit to allow people to fully grasp the concept of it. Qharris232 (talk) 18:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Victoria University of Wellington supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2012 Q1 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by PrimeBOT (talk) on 16:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program course assignment
This article is the subject of an educational assignment at Davidson College supported by WikiProject Psychology and the Wikipedia Ambassador Program&#32;during the 2011 Q3 term. Further details are available on the course page.

The above message was substituted from by Primefac (talk) on 16:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Senior Seminar
— Assignment last updated by Acsieling (talk) 03:53, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23
— Assignment last updated by Dhermatology (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2023 (UTC)