6 - Factors Affecting EWT: Misleading Info + Anxiety Flashcards
What is an eyewitness testimony (EWT)?
Ability of individuals to remember + retell details of events (often crimes) they have observed
What two things can affect the accuracy of an EWT?
- Misleading info (leading questions + post-event discussion)
- Anxiety
What is misleading information?
Incorrect info given to the eyewitness, usually after the event, that may affect the accuracy of their EWT
What are the two aspects of misleading info we look at?
- Leading questions
- Post-event discussion (PED)
What are leading questions?
Questions that, because of the way they are phrased, encourage a certain answer (therefore having potential to affect EWT accuracy)
Is misleading info thought to increase or decrease the accuracy of EWT?
Decrease - individuals begin to recall things they didn’t see
In what two ways are leading questions thought to affect the accuracy of an EWT?
- Response-bias explanation
- Substitution explanation
What is the response-bias explanation?
- Explanation of how leading questions impact EWT accuracy
- Wording of question has no enduring effect on EW’s memory, but influences the answer they give
What is the substitution explanation?
- Explanation of how leading questions impact EWT accuracy
- Wording of question affects EW’s memory of an event
Who did a study to investigate the impact of leading questions on EWT accuracy? When?
Loftus + Palmer (1974)
Outline Loftus + Palmer’s 1974 research on leading questions
Aim:
- To investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of EWTs
Procedure:
- Lab experiment
- 45 American students
- Showed film clip about car accident, then asked questions about speed
- 5 independent groups of ppts, each given different verb in critical question about speed: hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
Findings:
- ‘Contacted’ condition reported lowest mean speed est: 31.8mph
- ‘Smashed’ condition reported highest mean speed est: 40.5mph
Conclusion:
- Leading questions have ability to affect EWT (in this case most likely because of response-bias explanation: memory not changed)
What did Loftus + Palmer’s second 1974 experiment support? Why?
- Supported: leading questions causing substitution explanation
- Why: when repeated experiment + asked ppts to recall the event, people in the ‘smashed’ condition were most likely to report broken glass, even though there wasn’t any (memory changed)
What is post-event discussion (PED)?
EWs discussing their observation of an event with other people or co-witnesses (therefore having potential of affecting EWT accuracy)
What phenomenon is post-event discussion thought to cause?
Memory contamination (info from other witnesses mixes with own memories)
Why are post-event discussions thought to reduce the accuracy of EWTs?
Memory conformity (EWs go along with each other to win social approval, NSI, or because they believe the others are right, ISI)