16 Marker Flashcards
Post event discussion
Post-event discussion
when co-witness to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated
They may combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories. Research has demonstrated how this happens
Lading questions
Leading question
A question that either form or content, suggests a desired answer or leads a witness to believe a desired answer
Leading questions contain misleading pieces of information or wording and are usually closed.
Eye witness testimony
Eye witness testimony (EWT)
- the ability of people to remember the details of events, which they have observed.
Misleading info
Misleading information
- incorrect information given to the EW usually after the event
Section 1 Loftus and Palmer
1974
Aim: To see if asking Leading questions affect the accuracy of recall.
Method: Participants were shown films of car accidents. Some were asked ‘How fast was the car travelling when it hit the other car?’ There were 5 groups – smashed, hit, contacted, bumped, collided
Results: Those who heard the word ‘smashed’ gave a higher estimated speed than those who heard hit.
Conclusion: Leading questions will affect the accuracy of recall. The word smashed led participants to believe the car was going fast.
Substitution explanation
Substitution explanation
supported by Loftus and Palmer (1974) - the wording of the leading question actually changes the participants memory of the film clip
The critical verb altered their memory of the incident
Section 1 Loftus and Palmer AO3 eval
- Low ecological validity
- reductionist not taking into account other factors that may happen in a real event e.g anxiety and stress
- saying that the estimated speed (DV) is directly related to the word used (IV) what is they could see a pensioner, (Antastasi + Rhodes) what is the model of car was changed
May be more complex - witness rarely sees the full event in real life. Usually sees it in the peripherals or only sees part
- The anxiety levels are off and there is no element of surprise as they are not there
- Not supported by Yuille and Cutshaw as they showed that the misleading questions did not throw off the participants after 5 months. Shows that important details are less susceptible to distortion
- This suggests that misleading information might not have the same impact on real- life witnesses as it does in laboratory-based studies.
Section 2 - post event discussion Gabbard et al
2003
Procedure
- studied Pp in pairs. Type of experiment?
- Each watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
- This meant that each participant could see elements in the event that the other could not.
E.g. only one Pp could see the title of the book being carried by a young woman.
- Both Pp discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
Findings
- 71% of Pp mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see but had picked up in the discussion
Section 2 Gabbard et al eval AO3
- Low validity as we are unable to say that the discussion between participants was the cause of the inaccurate info
- Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989)
argue that many answers participants give in lab studies are the result of DC.
This is because it is a lab experiment so showed little ecological validity. In real life the - most participants are shown a filmed or staged crime
This leads to them figure it out the nature of the study and what they may be question about
Memory contamination
Co witnesses mix information
Memory conformity
Witnesses go along with others for social approval
Substitution explanation
Substitution explanation
supported by Loftus and Palmer (1974) - the wording of the leading question actually changes the participants memory of the film clip
The critical verb altered their memory of the incident
