EWT: Post-event discussion

Question 1

Gabbert et al. (2004) procedure

Answer 1

Lab experiment
Participants: 60 Uni of Aberdeen students and 60 local older adults
Participants alocated to either control group or experimental/co-witness group
Control group: Individually watched video of girl stealing a wallet
Experimental group: Put into pairs, watched video individually. Were told it was the same video but 1 from each pair saw the scene from a different perspective and didn’t see the girl steal the wallet. Then allowed to discuss what they saw
All participants then completed a questionnaire to test their memory of the event

Question 2

Gabbert et al. (2004) findings

Answer 2

71% of co-witnesses reported remembering info they hadn’t actually seen (they had picked this info up in conversation)
60% said she was guilty despite not seeing her commit the crime
0% of the control group reported remembering info they hadn’t actually seen

Question 3

Gabbert et al. (2004) conclusion

Answer 3

Participants in the co-witness group were influenced by the post event info given to them by their partner

Question 4

Strengths of Gabbert et al. (2004)

Answer 4

+ Reliable, easy to replicate

+ Practical applications, demonstrates unreliability of EWT

Question 5

Weaknesses of Gabbert et al. (2004)

Answer 5

• Lacks ecological validity, participants were aware it wasn’t a real crime
• Demand characteristics
• Social desirability