eye witness testimony

Question 1

what is eye witness testimony

Answer 1

ability of people to remember the details of events such as accidents or crimes, which they themselves have observed
- can be affected by, leading questions, misleading information and anxiety

Question 2

misleading information

Answer 2

incorrect info given to the eyewitness usually after the event e.g. podt event discussion

Question 3

leading question

Answer 3

a question which because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer

Question 4

post event discussion (PED)

Answer 4

occurs when there is more than one witness to an event. witnesses may discuss what they have seen with co witnesses or other people influencing the accuracy of recall of the eye witness

Question 5

loftus and palmer experiment

Answer 5

• lab experiment
• independent groups design
• IV= verb used
• DV= estimate of speed
• • 45 participants shown short video clips
• split into 5 groups, with 9 participants in each
• all participants asked ’ about how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other? ‘
• each group were given verb to fill in the blank. the verbs were ‘ smashed, collided, bumped, hit or contacted ‘
• dependent variable= estimate of speed given by the participants

Question 6

results of loftus and palmer

Answer 6

contacted= 31.8mph
smashed= 40.8mph
9mph difference
- how the questions was phrased influenced the participants speed estimates
- when teh ver smashed was used, participants estimated much faster than when th word collided was used

Question 7

loftus and palmer experiment 2

Answer 7

• lab experiment
• independent group design
• IV= verb used
• DV= whether participants saw glass
• 150 student participants shown a short film shoing a multi vehicle car accident and then they were asked questions about it
• particpants split into 3 groups, 50 in each
• one group asked how fast were the cars going when they hit eachother
• 2nd asked how fast were the cars going when they smashed into eachother
• 3rd group was not asked about the speed of the vehicles
• one week later, the participants returned and were asked did you see any broken glass
• no broken glass in the film

Question 8

results of loftus and paler experiment 2

Answer 8

did you see any broken glass
16 participants with smashed verb said yes, 34 said no
7 people with hit verb, said yes, 43 said no
control, 6 said yes, 44 said no
- results show that the verb used in the original question influenced whether the participants thought they had seen broken glass

Question 9

yuille and cutshall

Answer 9

aim: to find out if eyewitness testimony for real events can be influenced by
misleading information and how reliable EWT is
- 13 witnesses to a robbery and murder in canada were re interiewed 5 months after the crime
- young man robbed gun store, owner tried to prevent
- shopkeeper shot and injured and the young man being shot 6 times then killed
- re interview incuded 2 mis leading questions

Question 10

results of yuille and cutshall

Answer 10

• misleading questions had no effect on EWT, still had very accurate recall for the crime
• despite violent nature of the event, witness accounts of the incident proved to be very accurate and reliable
• most distressed witnesses had the best recall

Question 11

Post event discussion

Answer 11

original memory of an event may be distorted through discussion of this event with other people

Question 12

what is memory conformity

Answer 12

people being influenced by another persons report, results in individuals memory becoming more similar to another

Question 13

source monitoring theory

Answer 13

eye witness can recall things about the event but not where the information came from; if it was from their own memory or someone elses- source confusion

Question 14

conformity theory

Answer 14

eye witnesses recall appears to change only because they go along with the accounts of co witnesses, they do this either to win social approval or because they genuinely belive other witnesses are right and they are wrong

Question 15

gabbert et al

Answer 15

investigated the effect of post event discussion on the accuracy of eye witness testimony
- 60 students from uni of aberdeen and 60 older adults from local community
- participants watched video of girl stealing money from wallet
- participants either tested individually (control group) or in pairs (co witness groups)
- participants in co witness groups were told they watched the same video, however they had seen different perspectives of the same crime and only one girl had actually seen the girl stealing
- participants in the co witness group discussed the crime together
- all participants then completed a questionnaire, testing the memory of their event

Question 16

results of gabbert et al

Answer 16

• found 71% of witnesses in the co witness group recalled info they had not actually seen and 60% said the girl was guilty, despite the fact they had not actually seen her commit the crime
• highlight the issue of post event discussion and the powerful effect this can have on the accuracy of eye witness testimony

Question 17

wright et al

Answer 17

• showed pairs of participants an identical crime, except that half saw an accomplice with the theif and some did not
• initial memories were very accurate, but after discussing the crime with the person in the pair, who saw a slightly different sequence, 75% of teh pairs exhibited conformity and said tehy saw the accomplice

Question 18

yerkes dodson law - anxiety

Answer 18

• performance improves with increase in arousal up to some optimal point and then decreases with further arousal
• small to medium increases in arousal may increase the accuracy of EWT but high levels interfere with accuracy

Question 19

optimum level of stress/anxiety

Answer 19

recall improves up to a point and then declines if anxiety continues to increase

Question 20

loftus et al

Answer 20

monitored eye witness movements
- found that teh presence of weapons causes attention to be drawn to the weapon
- attention is drawn away from factors such as the persons face
- anxiety can have apositive and negative effect on the accuracy of EWT

Question 21

johnson and soctt/ loftus et al

Answer 21

aim: to investigate the effects of anxiety on eye witness testimony
- johnson and scott invited participants to a lab where they were told to wait in teh reception area. the receptionist excused herself leaving the participant alone
- in both conditions, participants heard a discussion in an adjoining room
- in the ‘no weapon’ group, the participant overheard a conversation about the equipment failure then an individual left the lab passing the participant with a pen in his hand and his hands covered in grease
- in the weapon group the participants heard an altercation and the sound of breaking glass and chairs falling then an individual left running into the reception holding a bloody letter opener
- both groups then shown 50 photographs and asked to identify the person who had left the lab. participants informed that the suspect may or may not be present in the photographs

Question 22

results of loftus et al

Answer 22

• those who had witness man holding pen correctly identified the suspect, 49% of the time
• those who had witnessed the man holding a knife correctly identified the target 33% of the time
• participants who were exposed to the knife had higher anxiety and were more likely to focus there attention to the weapon and not the face of the target
• WEAPON FOCUS EFFECT

Question 23

what study contrasts this

Answer 23

yuille and cutshall as it states that those most distressed had the best recall

Question 24

the effects of anxiety on ewt

Answer 24

• there is a difference in results found in lab experiments and in real life
• recall after real life events is generally better
• sympathetic arousal caused by acute stress enhances memory
• this is likely to be greater in real life situationd

Question 25

negatives of lab experiments

Answer 25

when people know they are taking part in a lab experiment they may not feel the same anxiety that they do in real life, meaning their recall may not reflect the recall which would be founf in a real life situation
- this means that such experiments lack ecological validity because if the setting was changed, the results would be different