A2 - Making a Case - // - Expert Witness

Question 1

Background Info: What 3 witness identifying conditions which psychologists knew make EWT unreliable?

Answer 1

• Leading questions > memory = reconstructive and is altered by the wording of questions
• Weapon Effect > Witness worse at identifying suspect, as weapon draw attention
• Delayed Testimony - longer delay > less reliable memory (court appearances after a long time from crime)

Question 2

Who conducted the study on expert witnesses?

Answer 2

Cutler et al (1989)

Question 3

What was the sample made up of?

Answer 3

538 undergraduates.

Question 4

What did participants do?

Answer 4

• watch a mock trial of a robbery
• individually completed a questionnaire
• completed a memory test
• completed rating scales of their confidence in their verdict

Question 5

What did they find with the expressal of expert opinion?

Answer 5

Experts gave low ratings to ‘poor’ WIC and high ratings were given to ‘good’ conditions. When experts expressed confidence, juror confidence increased too.

Question 6

What did they find with the form of expert testimony?

Answer 6

When expert testimony was descriptive (use of ordinary language), more guilty verdicts were given.

Question 7

How is the study low in ecological validity?

Answer 7

The verdict has no consequences, mock trial = videotape

Question 8

How is the study high in reliability?

Answer 8

Standardised procedure, use of videotape and questionnaire.

Question 9

How does the study lack generalisability?

Answer 9

Ethnocentric sample of uni students

Question 10

What are the 3 evaluative points?

Answer 10

1. Reliability
2. Low generalizability
3. Low ecological validity