Accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading information Flashcards
What is eye witness testimony?
The evidence provided in court by a person who witnessed a crime with a view to identifying the perpetrator of the crime.
What is misleading information?
Supplying information that may alter a witness’ memory of a crime to be altered.
What are leading questions?
Questions that suggest to the witness what the desired answer is or leads them to that desired answer.
Either due to the form or content of the question.
Can alter a response or even cause the memory to change before it is stored.
What is post - event discussion?
A conversation between co-witnesses or an interviewer and an eyewitness after a crime has taken place that may contaminate or alter a witness’ memory of the event.
What’s the key study into leading questions
(experiment 1)?
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
- 45 students were shown 7 different films of traffic accidents.
- After each film they were given a questionnaire which asked questions about the accident and required them to describe it.
- One group were asked about the speed of the cars when they “hit” eachother.
- Other groups were given the same question but the verb “hit” was replaced with verbs such as “smashed” and “contacted”.
- This was a leading question as the verb used suggested the answer that should be given (e.g. the verb “smashed” suggests that the cars were driving at a high speed while “contacted” suggests they were not).
- Found that questions with the verb “smashed” in it resulted in a mean speed estimate of 40.8 mph, while “contacted” resulted in a lower estimate of only 31.8 mph.
- Suggests that leading questions can effect EWT, the phrasing of a question can clearly impact a witnesses’ response which demonstrates that misleading information reduces accuracy of EWT.
What’s the key study into leading questions
(experiment 2)?
Loftus and Palmer (1974)
- A new set of participants were divided into 3 groups and shown a short film of a car accident and asked about the speed of the cars.
- They returned a week later and were asked 10 questions about the accident, including whether they saw any broken glass.
- There was no broken glass in the film, but presumably those who thought the car was travelling faster would be more likely to assume that there would be broken glass.
- Found that 16 people with the “smashed” verb in their question said they saw broken glass, whereas only 7 people with the verb “hit” in their question reported seeing broken glass.
- Suggests that leading questions can alter the memory a witness has of an event, making them believe that they’ve seen something they haven’t.
- The phrasing of a question can clearly influence a witness’ response, demonstrating that misleading information reduces the accuracy of EWT.
What is the conformity effect?
When co-witnesses reach a consensus view of what actually happened.
What was the name of the researcher who investigated the conformity effect?
Fiona Gabbert.
What was the method of Fiona’s investigation on the conformity effect?
Participants were put into pairs where each partner watched a different video of the same event so that they both saw unique items. Pairs in one condition discussed the event before each partner was asked to recall the event they had just watched.
What were the results of Fiona’s investigation on the conformity effect?
71% of participants who had discussed the event with there partner mistakenly recalled items discussed by the other partner of which they did not see in there video.
What is the problem with repeat interviewing when trying to retrieve information from a witness?
If a eyewitness is interviewed multiple times there is a chance that each time comments from the interviewer will become incorporated into there recollection of events.
A03 of misleading information
+ Supporting evidence
+ Real-world application.
- Lack of ecological validity
- Individual differences
A03: Supporting evidence
- Conducted by Loftus and Pickrell
- Participants were asked to evaluate advertisements for Disneyland and within these advertisements there was misleading information
- Bugs Bunny featured in some of the adverts which is misleading because this character is not a Disney character so could not have been at Disneyland
- Participants were either assigned to the Bugs Bunny condition or control condition with no misleading information
- Those in the misleading information condition were more likely to report meeting and shaking hands with Bugs Bunny at Disneyland than the control group
- This supports the theory as it suggests that misleading information can create false memories and lead to inaccuracy in memory recall
- Therefore, the theory may be very useful in explaining the effects of misleading information on accuracy of EWT
A03: Real-world application
- The criminal justice system relies heavily on eyewitness identification and the theory can be used to warn against the over reliance on EWT and highlight how easily EWT can be influenced.
- Inaccurate EWT has been one of the largest factors contributing to the conviction of innocent people — one study found that 72% of overturned convictions involved inaccurate EWT.
- By suggesting to the criminal justice system that accuracy of EWT can be easily influenced by misleading information, it has been useful in making sure that EWT is viewed with caution and perhaps reducing the number of innocent people convicted based on inaccurate EWTs.
A03: Lack ecological validity
Laboratory experiments such as those carried out by Loftus may not represent real life. Foster et al (1994) found that if participants thought they were watching a real-life robbery, and also thought that their responses would influence the trial, their identification of a robber was more accurate. This is a weakness because it can be argued that the findings from artificial laboratory research settings such (as Loftus’ study) may not be applicable to real-life EWT behaviour, which weakens the research as support for the role of misleading information affecting the accuracy of EWT.
