EWT

Question 1

Loftus did

Answer 1

The car crash study into misleading information
And the weapon focus theory

Question 2

Deffenbacher

Answer 2

The inverted U hypothesis. He performed a meta analysis of 21 studies into anxiety in order to create the diagram

Question 3

Christiansen and Hubinette

Answer 3

Interviewed real bank robbery. The increased arousal seemed to increase awareness and recall.

Question 4

Kohnken et al did what?

Answer 4

A meta analysis of 55 studies comparing the standard police interview to the cognitive one.

Question 5

What did Kohnken find?

Answer 5

The CI produced not only more accurate recall but that age had seeming no baring on it as well. If they were personally involved then recall was better. The longer they waited to do the CI the weaker to recall accuracy.

Question 6

Geiselman and Fisher did what?

Answer 6

Designed the enhanced CI.

Question 7

The CI uses 4 elements. What?

Answer 7

. Context reinstatement
. Narrative order
. Perspective changes (asking what others have seen)
. Reporting on everything

Question 8

What is the CI based on?

Answer 8

The encoding specificity principle (Tulving)

Question 9

The 4 components of CI are

Answer 9

Change of narrative
Change of perspective
Mental reinstatement
Reporting everything
. These are in no particular order

Question 10

Problem with the ECI

Answer 10

Prone to making more confabulations

Question 11

Difference between the CI and ECI

Answer 11

Open ended questions
Less rushed
Reduces anxiety
No unnecessary interruptions

Question 12

Fisher et al found that

Answer 12

The ECI performed far better than the SPI

Question 13

Loftus’ 5 words were

Answer 13

Contacted, hit, bumped, collided and smashed

Question 14

Bartlett

Answer 14

The role of schemas overlapping
He did the study of western particpants trying to memorise a native American ghost story

Question 15

Bartlett’s results…

Answer 15

The particpants often distorted and replaced details in the story with culturally familiar things

Question 16

Gabbert et al did what?

Answer 16

Investigated post event discussion. 60 University of Aberdeen students.
They all watched the same footage of a girl stealing money from a wallet.

There was a control group and the other was tested in pairs. They were told they’d seen the same footage however they had actually had different perspectives of the same crime. The pairs discussed what they had seen
. They all completed questionnaires testing their memory

Question 17

Gabbert found what?

Answer 17

71% of the witnesses in the co-witness condition recalled information they could not have seen.
60% said the girl was guilty even though they hadn’t even seen the crime

Question 18

Gabbert did not conclude however….

Answer 18

How the memories were distorted. Did people assimilate information into their own or were they unable to distinguish between others and their perspectives due to conformity

Question 19

Gabbert’s study has a possible confounding variable

Answer 19

Conformity is possible, instead of distortion, maybe informational.

Question 20

Loftus had __ university participants

Answer 20

45 only