EWT: Misleading information Flashcards
What is eyewitness testimony?
The ability of people to remember the details of events, such as accidents and crimes, which they’ve observed
What effects EWT
misleasing info
anxiety
What is misleading information
Incorrect information given to the eyewitness after the event
What are leading questions
A question which, because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer
What was the aim if Loftus and Palmers study
investigate whether misleading information distorts the accuracy of an eye witnesses’ immediate recall
What was the method of Loftus and Palmers study
45 ppts were shown 7 films of different traffic accidents in a lab
All participants saw the same films and were then given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and then answer a series of questions, including **one critical question, ‘How fast were the cars going when they __ each other?’
Ppts split into 5 conditions & each had a different verb in the critical question
Smashed, Crashed Bumped, Hit Contacted
What were the results of Loftus and Palmers study
Avg speeed
Smashed - 40.8 mph
Collided - 39.9
Bumped - 38.1
Hit - 34.0
Contacted - 31.8
What was the conclusion if Loftus and Palmers study
The form of questioning can have an effect on witnesses’ memory.
Misleading information can cause material to be altered, therefore making memory less accurate.
What are strengths of Loftus and Palmers study
High control
Practical applications
What are limitations of Loftus and Palmers study
Low ecological validity
Individual differences
Evaluate high control as a strength of Loftus and Palmers study
P: lab experiment and establishes cause and effect.
E: Had high control over extraneous variables (e.g. all participants heard the same standardised instructions and the same video clips) we can be confident that the IV (the verb used in the critical question) affected the DV (participants’ estimates of speed).
E: Strength because the results of this study are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables and we can be confident that the findings have internal validity. Supports the theory that leading questions/ misleading information does reduce the accuracy of EWT.
Evaluate practical applications as a strength of Loftus and Palmers study
P: Has practical applications.
E: From the research we now understand that EWT is not always accurate and that misleading information can distort EWT and therefore when witnesses are interviewed police avoid leading questions.
In addition, research such as Loftus et al has led to the development of the cognitive interview which increases the accuracy of EWT
E: Strength of the research because it has made an important contribution to how the legal system works in real life.
FURTHER E: Also has economic implications because if EWT is more accurate, this will mean there are less incorrect convictions, therefore less appeals and so there will be more money saved in the criminal justice system.
Evaluate low ecological validity as a limitation of Loftus and Palmers study
P: Has low ecological validity as the method that Loftus and Palmer used is not testing the impact of leading questions in a realistic way.
E: Ppts watched a video of a car accident and are not likely to respond in the same way as they would if the car accident was real e.g. they are not distressed and there are also no consequences based on ppts answers.
E: Limitation because results cannot necessarily be generalised to real life and therefore may not provide valid support for the claim that leading questions reduce the accuracy of EWT.
FURTHER E: Furthermore, Yuille & Cutshall’s research into leading questions and EWT using real life witnesses of a crime found that leading questions had no effect upon the accuracy of recall. This suggests that in real life, when there is high ecological validity, misleading information does not make eyewitness testimony less accurate.
Evaluate individual differences as a limitation of Loftus and Palmers study
P: May be important individual differences in accuracy of EWT such as the age of the witness.
E: Anastasi and Rhodes (2006) found that young and middle-aged participants were significantly more accurate than older participants and all age groups were more accurate in identifying their own age group.
E: This is a limitation because the research into leading questions and EWT has not taken this into account as most of the experiments were conducted on students (who are more likely to be young) so the results may be difficult to generalise to people of all ages and therefore reduces the validity of the claim
What is post event discussion?
occurs when there is more than one witness to an event they may discuss what they have seen with others.
May influence the accuracy of each witness’s recall of the event
What was the aim of Gabbert et als study
investigate the effect of post-event discussion on accuracy of EWT.
What was the method of Gabbert et als study
Ppts watch a video of the same crime, but filmed from different points of view.
Were asked to either: discuss the video they had just seen or have no discussion
What were the results of Gabbert et als study
71% of the participants who had had a discussion reported aspects of the event that they did not see in the video whereas in the control group this figure was 0%.
What was the conclusion of Gabbert et als study
Witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong - memory conformity
What are strengths of Gabbert et als study
Practical applications
High control
What is a limitation of Gabbert et als study
low ecological validity
Evaluate practical applications as a strength of Gabbert et als study
P: Has practical applications.
E: We now understand that EWT is not always accurate and that post-event discussion can distort EWT and therefore police should aim to avoid witnesses talking to each other.
E: Strength of the research because it has made an important contribution to our understanding of the issue of using eye witness testimony in as evidence in criminal investigations in real life.
Evaluate high control as a strength of Gabbert et als study
P: Lab experiment and establishes cause and effect.
E: High control over extraneous variables we can be confident that the IV (discussed the video with another participant or have no discussion) affected the DV (% of participants that provided information they did not witness).
E: Strength because the results of this study are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables and we can be confident that the findings that post-witness discussion reduces EWT has internal validity.
Evaluate low ecological validity as a limitation of Gabbert et als study
P: Low ecological validity.
E: Ppts watched a video of a crime and are therefore not likely to respond in the same way as they would if they had witnessed the crime in real life e.g. less anxious and distressed.
E: This is a limitation because Gabbert’s results cannot necessarily be generalised to real life and therefore may not provide valid support for the claim that post-event discussion reduce the accuracy of EWT.
