COGNITIVE Evidence - Loftus Flashcards
Aims of experiment 1
See if speed estimates given by the participants upon watching a video of a car crash would be influenced by the wording of the question asked
Context
Eye witness testimony is a legal term, referring to the use of eyewitnesses to give evidence in court
This testimony is then used to help the police apprehend a suspect, and can be used to give evidence
The Innocence Project claim that eyewitness misidentification is the greatest cause of wrongful convictions in the USA
EWT is not always accurate
Role of leading questions
May be inadvertently used by the police
Information received after an event can have a retroactive inferring effect on our recollection
Interferes with previous learning
The way in which the police interview witnesses after an incident may alter their memory for the event
Filmore (1971) suggested that the words ‘smashed’ and ‘hit’ may imply different rates of speed
Words lead the listener to assume different consequences
By changing one word in a question, we may be altering the memory of the witness
Aims of experiment 2
If leading questions just changed the responses given to the questions or if the memories had actually been altered as a result
Methodology of Experiment 1
45 student participants
Lab / questionnaire
Changed the verb used to find an estimate of speed
Methodology of experiment 2
150 student participants
3 groups of 50
Lab / Interview
Changed the verb used to find if glass was on the floor
Procedures of experiment 1
Each participant watched 7 films with a traffic accident
Lasted 5.5 seconds, and given in a different order
After each film, each participant was given a questionnaire
First item on the questionnaire was asking the students to give an account of what they had seen
The second part of the questionnaire was a series of specific questions about the video
All participants were asked the question ‘How fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?’
Blank was filled with: hit, smashed, collided, bumped, contacted
The critical question was about the speed of the cars
Procedures of experiment 2
Started by watching the multiple car crash, then asked about it
Group 1: Hit
Group 2: Smashed
Group 3: No question on speed
One week later: Asked questions on broken glass
There was no broken glass in the video
Conclusions of experiment 1
When estimating speed of car, all videos were given similar answers
Eyewitnesses are not accurate at estimating speed
Verb used had a big impact on estimation of speed
Leading questions have an impact
It may be that the participants response is biased, they are uncertain and the verb biases their response
The verb used in the question may actually cause a change in the participants memory so they see the accident as being more severe than it actually was
Conclusions of experiment 2
The greater the speed estimate, the higher the probability of saying yes
Strengths of the methodology and procedures
Controlled experiment
Reliable
Uses standardised procedures
Results have been found to be consistent
Weaknesses of the methodology and procedures
Participants watched a video of a car crash, not a real car crash
Lowers ecological validity
More careful / biased with answers
Social desirability
Sample of participants used - US college students
Not representative of the target population
Alternative evidence strength
Buckhout (1980) showed a clip of a mugging on TV. A parade of 6 suspects was later shown and viewers were asked to phone in and say who they thought had done it
Chance alone would suggest that 17% would get it right
Only 14% identified the person correctly
Shows that in real life, recall is really poor
Loftus and Pickrell (1995) interviewed about events in childhood, planting a false memory of being lost in a mall as a child
20% came to believe that this event had actually happened
Some even clung to the memory after being debriefed
Leading questions can plant memories that were never even in the mind
Develops the theory that verbal information can alter memory
Alternative evidence weaknesses
Yullie and Cutshall (1986) interviewed 13 people who had witnessed an armed robbery 4 months previously, which included 2 misleading questions
Found that they were not led by leading questions, and the accounts that they gave were very similar to those in their initial witness statements
Suggests that Loftus’ results only apply in a laboratory setting, not in real life
Ethical issues & social implications strength
Not as many people will be wrongfully convicted
Reduced leading questions
Ethical issues & social implications weakness
Participants were deceived about the aims of the study
Without, they could change their answers
Could bring up traumatic memories
