2.5: Misleading information Flashcards
Several factors have been identified as affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT).
Example
For example, misleading information
Several factors have been identified as affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (EWT).
For example, misleading information, in the form of what?
For example, misleading information, in the form of:
- Leading questions
- Post-event discussion
Misleading information
Misleading information is information that suggests a desired response
Post-event discussion
Post-event discussion is misleading information being added to a memory after the event has occurred
Leading questions
Leading questions are questions:
- Phrased in such a way to prompt a particular kind of answer
- That increase the likelihood that an individual’s schemas will influence them to give a desired answer
A leading question is a question phrased in such a way to prompt a particular kind of answer.
Example
For example:
- ‘You like Psychology don’t you?’
- ‘Did you see the gun?’
A leading question is a question phrased in such a way to prompt a particular kind of answer.
For example, ‘You like Psychology don’t you?’ and ‘Did you see the gun?’ compared to what?
For example, ‘You like Psychology don’t you?’ and ‘Did you see the gun?’ compared to the general questions of:
- ‘What are your thoughts on Psychology?’
- ‘Did you see a gun?’
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring when?
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event.
A key factor is the use of misleading information, particularly in the form of leading questions, and post-event discussion.
Example
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event.
A key factor is the use of misleading information, particularly in the form of leading questions, and post-event discussion.
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’ by doing what?
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’ by asking questions that suggest a certain answer
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event.
A key factor is the use of misleading information, particularly in the form of leading questions, and post-event discussion.
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’ by asking questions that suggest a certain answer.
Misleading information has been found to be more able to create memories the more what it is?
Misleading information has been found to be more able to create memories the more: 1. Believable 2. Emotionally arousing 3. Subtle it is
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event.
A key factor is the use of misleading information, particularly in the form of leading questions, and post-event discussion.
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’ by asking questions that suggest a certain answer.
Misleading information has been found to be more able to create memories the more believable, emotionally arousing and subtle it is.
Post-event discussion concerns misleading information being added to a memory after the event has occurred, with research indicating that what can be stimulated?
Post-event discussion concerns misleading information being added to a memory after the event has occurred, with research indicating that false memories can be stimulated
Research regularly shows that EWT is affected by experiences occurring after a witnessed event.
A key factor is the use of misleading information, particularly in the form of leading questions, and post-event discussion.
For example, most people will have seen TV dramas set in courtrooms where barristers are accused of ‘leading the witness’ by asking questions that suggest a certain answer.
Misleading information has been found to be more able to create memories the more believable, emotionally arousing and subtle it is.
Post-event discussion concerns misleading information being added to a memory after the event has occurred, with research indicating that false memories can be stimulated by what experiences?
Post-event discussion concerns misleading information being added to a memory after the event has occurred, with research indicating that false memories can be stimulated by misleading post-event experiences
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because they do what?
This is because the witnesses combine:
1. (Mis)information from other witnesses
with
2. Their own memories
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Who (what year) studied participants in pairs?
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched what?
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from what?
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
What did this mean?
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
Example
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
What did both participants then do?
Both participants then discussed what they had seen
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before doing what?
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that what % of the participants mistakenly recalled what?
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up where?
The findings of this study were that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they:
1. Did not see in the video
,but
2. Had picked up in the discussion
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
The what figure in a control group?
The corresponding figure in a control group
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no what, was what %?
The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no discussion, was 0%
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no discussion, was 0%.
The conclusions of this study are that Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often do what?
The conclusions of this study are that Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no discussion, was 0%.
The conclusions of this study are that Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to do what or because they believe what?
The conclusions of this study are that Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either:
1. To win social approval
Or,
2. Because they believe that the other witnesses are right and that they are wrong
When witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other (post-event discussion), their eyewitness testimonies may become contaminated.
This is because the witnesses combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
Research has demonstrated how this happens:
Fiona Gabbert et al. (2003) studied participants in pairs.
The method and procedure was that each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
This meant that each participant could see elements of the event that the other could not.
For example, only one of the participants could see the title of a book being carried by a young woman.
Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
The findings of this study are that the researchers found that 71% of the participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video, but had picked up in the discussion.
The corresponding figure in a control group, where there was no discussion, was 0%.
The conclusions of this study are that Gabbert et al. concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe that the other witnesses are right and that they are wrong.
Gabbert et al. called this phenomenon what?
Gabbert et al. called this phenomenon memory conformity
Evaluation:
What is a great strength of all research into misleading information?
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications
Evaluation:
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important what?
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world
Evaluation:
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where what can be very serious indeed?
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be very serious indeed
Evaluation:
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be very serious indeed.
Example
For example, Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses
Evaluation:
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be very serious indeed.
Research into eyewitness testimony is one area in which psychologists believe that they can do what?
Research into eyewitness testimony is one area in which psychologists believe that they can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people
Evaluation:
A great strength of all research into misleading information is that is has useful real-life applications, because it has hugely important practical uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be very serious indeed.
Research into eyewitness testimony is one area in which psychologists believe that they can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people, for instance by doing what?
Research into eyewitness testimony is one area in which psychologists believe that they can make an important positive difference to the lives of real people, for instance by:
- Improving the way the legal system works
- Appearing in court trials as expert witnesses
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are what than younger people when giving eyewitness reports?
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
Example
For example, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that people in age groups:
1. 18 - 25
2. 35 - 45
were more accurate than people in the age group 55 - 78 years
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
For example, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that people in age groups 18 - 25 and 35 - 45 were more accurate than people in the age group 55 - 78 years.
However, all age groups were more accurate when identifying what?
All age groups were more accurate when identifying people of their own age group
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
For example, Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that people in age groups 18 - 25 and 35 - 45 were more accurate than people in the age group 55 - 78 years.
However, all age groups were more accurate when identifying people of their own age group.
What is this called?
This is called own age bias
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
Research studies often use what as the target to identify?
Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear what?
Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate
Evaluation:
There is evidence that older people are less accurate than younger people when giving eyewitness reports.
Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate, but in fact this is what?
Research studies often use younger people as the target to identify and this may mean that some age groups appear less accurate, but in fact this is not true
Who (what year) found that the effects of post-event discussion can be reduced?
Bodner et al. (2008) found that the effects of post-event discussion can be reduced
Bodner et al. (2008) found that the effects of post-event discussion can be reduced, if participants are what?
Bodner et al. (2008) found that the effects of post-event discussion can be reduced, if participants are warned of the effects
Bodner et al. (2008) found that the effects of post-event discussion can be reduced, if participants are warned of the effects.
Recall was more accurate for those participants who were warned that what?
Recall was more accurate for those participants who were warned that:
- Anything that they hear from a co-witness is second-hand information (or ‘hearsay’)
- They should forget it and recall only their own memory of the event
Evaluation:
Who (what year) argue that many answers participants give in what are the result of demand characteristics?
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in laboratory studies of eyewitness testimony are the result of demand characteristics
Evaluation:
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in laboratory studies of eyewitness testimony are the result of demand characteristics.
Participants usually do not want to do what and want to appear what?
Participants usually:
- Do not want to let the researcher down
- Want to appear helpful and attentive
Evaluation:
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in laboratory studies of eyewitness testimony are the result of demand characteristics.
Participants usually do not want to let the researcher down and want to appear helpful and attentive.
So when they are asked a question that they don’t know the answer to, they guess, especially if it’s a what question?
So when they are asked a question that they don’t know the answer to, they guess, especially if it’s a yes/no question
Evaluation:
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in laboratory studies of eyewitness testimony are the result of demand characteristics.
Participants usually do not want to let the researcher down and want to appear helpful and attentive.
So when they are asked a question that they don’t know the answer to, they guess, especially if it’s a yes/no question.
For example, you are a participant in a study and have seen what?
For example, you:
- Are a participant in a study
- Have seen a film clip of a street robbery
Evaluation:
Zaragosa and McCloskey (1989) argue that many answers participants give in laboratory studies of eyewitness testimony are the result of demand characteristics.
Participants usually do not want to let the researcher down and want to appear helpful and attentive.
So when they are asked a question that they don’t know the answer to, they guess, especially if it’s a yes/no question.
For example, you are a participant in a study and have seen a film clip of a street robbery.
Now you are answering some yes/no questions and one of them is ‘Did you see the blue car?’
There was no blue car in the clip, but you still answer ‘yes’ to the question, because it seems like what?
There was no blue car in the clip, but you still answer ‘yes’ to the question, because it seems like a more helpful answer
Evaluation:
Who (what year) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have what in the real world?
Foster et al. (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world
Evaluation:
Foster et al. (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world, but the same is not true where?
Foster et al. (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world, but the same is not true in research studies
Evaluation:
Foster et al. (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world, but the same is not true in research studies.
They showed that eyewitness testimony was more accurate for what?
They showed that eyewitness testimony was more accurate for real-life crimes
Evaluation:
Foster et al. (1994) point out that what you remember as an eyewitness can have some very important consequences in the real world, but the same is not true in research studies.
They showed that eyewitness testimony was more accurate for real-life crimes as opposed to what?
They showed that eyewitness testimony was more accurate for real-life crimes as opposed to simulations
Who (what year) found that what % of participants who watched a video of a car ride?
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked what?
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who:
- Watched a video of a car ride
- Were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’ (when there was what)?
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’ (when there was no barn)
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’ (when there was no barn) recalled what how long later?
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’ (when there was no barn) recalled seeing a barn a week later
Loftus (1975) found that 17% of participants who watched a video of a car ride and were asked ‘How fast was the car going when it passed the white barn?’ (when there was no barn) recalled seeing a barn a week later.
This supports the idea that what can affect recall?
This supports the idea that post-event information added to a memory after the event has occurred can affect recall
Evaluation:
Participants don’t expect to be what by researchers?
Participants don’t expect to be deliberately misled by researchers
Evaluation:
Participants don’t expect to be deliberately misled by researchers, therefore what should perhaps be expected?
Participants don’t expect to be deliberately misled by researchers, therefore inaccurate recall should perhaps be expected
Evaluation:
Participants don’t expect to be deliberately misled by researchers, therefore inaccurate recall should perhaps be expected, because participants believe what?
Participants don’t expect to be deliberately misled by researchers, therefore inaccurate recall should perhaps be expected, because participants believe that the researchers are telling the truth
Evaluation:
Misleading information often affects only what?
Misleading information often affects only unimportant aspects of memory
Evaluation:
Misleading information often affects only unimportant aspects of memory.
Memory for important events isn’t as easily what?
Memory for important events isn’t as easily distorted
Evaluation:
Misleading information often affects only unimportant aspects of memory.
Memory for important events isn’t as easily distorted when the information is what?
Memory for important events isn’t as easily distorted when the information is obviously misleading
Evaluation:
Misleading information often affects only unimportant aspects of memory.
Memory for important events isn’t as easily distorted when the information is obviously misleading.
What misleading information is much more influential?
- Subtle
- Plausible
misleading information is much more influential
Evaluation:
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring what?
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring ethical concerns
Evaluation:
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring ethical concerns of what?
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring ethical concerns of psychological harm
Evaluation:
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring ethical concerns of psychological harm.
For instance, care should be taken not to include participants who may have experienced what?
For instance, care should be taken not to include participants who may have experienced traumatic car accidents
Evaluation:
Studies of eyewitness testimony that use possibly distressing stimuli bring ethical concerns of psychological harm.
For instance, care should be taken not to include participants who may have experienced traumatic car accidents.
Many studies of eyewitness testimony also involve what?
Many studies of eyewitness testimony also involve elements of deceit
