Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information

Question 1

What is eyewitness testimony

Answer 1

The ability to remember details of events such as accidents and crimes, which they themselves have observed

Question 2

What factors effect the accuracy of EWT

Answer 2

-Misleading information
-Anxiety

Question 3

What other word is used for eyewitness testimony

Answer 3

Eyewitness memory

Question 4

What are the three stages of eyewitness memory

Answer 4

-Encoding
-Retain
-Retrieve

Question 5

What is stage one of eyewitness memory

Answer 5

-The witness encodes into LTM details of the event and the persons involved.

Question 6

What is stage two of eyewitness memory

Answer 6

-The witness retains the information for a period of time. Memories may be lost or modified during retention (most forgetting takes place within the first few minutes of a retention interval) and other activities between encoding and retrieval may interfere with the memory itself

Question 7

What is stage three of eyewitness memory

Answer 7

-The witness retrieves the memory from storage. The presence or absence of appropriate retrieval cues or the nature of the questioning may significantly affect the accuracy of what is recalled

Question 8

Describe Loftus and Palmer’s study (1974) on the impact of leading questions on EWT

Answer 8

Experiment 1:

45 participants watched short clips of car accidents.They were then asked to estimate the speed of the cars, but the verb used in the critical question varied: “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” or replaced with “smashed,” “collided,” “bumped,” or “contacted.”

Experiment 2:

-150 students were shown a short video clip of a car accident. After watching the clip, participants were divided into three groups and asked different questions.One group was asked: “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
Another group was asked the same question but with the verb “hit” instead of “smashed.”
A control group was not asked about speed.

A week later, participants returned and were asked: “Did you see any broken glass?” (There was no broken glass in the video).

Question 9

Conclusion of Loftus and Palmers study (1974) on leading questions

Answer 9

-Loftus and Palmer concluded that memory is reconstructive and can be influenced by misleading information, such as leading questions. The wording of a question can distort recall, making eyewitness testimony often unreliable.

-This study highlights the risk of using leading questions in police interviews and courtrooms, as they can create false memories and distort eyewitness testimony.

Question 10

What is the independent variable in Loftus and Palmers study

Answer 10

-The verb used to describe the car crash E.G collided,constructed, hit, bumped,smashed

Question 11

What is the dependent variable in Loftus and Palmer’s study

Answer 11

-Experiment 1: estimated speed of the vehicle

-Experiment 2: Whether participants falsely recalled seeing broken glass (yes/no)

Question 12

What experimental design is used in Lofts and Palmer’s study

Answer 12

Independent groups design

Question 13

What is a leading question

Answer 13

-A question that suggests a certain answer due to the way that it has been phrased E.g ‘Was the knife in his left hand?’ This implies where the knife was

Question 14

Why do leading questions affects EWT

Answer 14

-Response bias explanation
-Substitution explanation

Question 15

What is the Response bias explanation (misleading questions)

Answer 15

Response Bias Explanation (Memory Unchanged)

-Suggests misleading questions do not change memory, but influence how a person answers due to uncertainty or social pressure.

-n Loftus & Palmer’s study, participants who heard “smashed” may have guessed a higher speed because the word implied greater force, but their memory of the event remained intact.

Question 16

Example of the response bias explanation

Answer 16

-If asked, “How fast were the cars going when they smashed?”, a person might estimate a higher speed simply because the verb suggests a more severe crash.

Question 17

What is the substitution explanation

Answer 17

1.-Substitution Explanation (Memory Distortion)

-Suggests that misleading information actually alters the original memory, replacing it with false details.

-Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Broken Glass Study supports this:
• Participants who heard “smashed” were more likely to falsely recall seeing broken glass.
• This suggests their memory of the event was changed, not just influenced during recall.

Question 18

Example of the substitution explanation

Answer 18

In Loftus and Palmer’s study, those who heard “smashed” were more likely to falsely recall broken glass, suggesting their memory was altered by the wording of the question.

Question 19

What study did Gabbert et al (2003) conduct

Answer 19

-Conducted a study on post-event discussion to investigate how discussing an event with others can distort eyewitness memory..

Question 20

Describe Gabbert et al (2003) study on post event discussion

Answer 20

-Participants were placed in pairs and shown a video of the same crime but from different perspectives.This meant that each participant saw elements of the crime that the other did not. After watching the video, pairs were encouraged to discuss what they had seen before individually completing a recall test about the event.

Findings

-71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they had not actually seen but had picked up from their discussion with their partner. In a control group (where no discussion took place), 0% mistakenly recalled unseen details. Furthermore, 60% of participants who had not seen the crime taking place (because it was out of their camera’s view) still reported seeing it after discussing with their partner.

Question 21

Conclusion of Gabbert et a study on post event discussion

Answer 21

-Post-event discussion can lead to memory conformity, where individuals incorporate information from others into their own memory, even if it is incorrect. This demonstrates the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

-This study supports the idea that memory is reconstructive and influenced by social interactions, which has important implications for police interviews and legal proceedings.

Question 22

Why does post event information/ discussion effect EWT

Answer 22

-Memory contamination- When co witnesses discuss a crime, they mix(mis) information from other witnesses with their own memories

-Memory conformity- Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right

Question 23

What is memory contamination

Answer 23

When co witnesses discuss a crime, they mix(mis) information from other witnesses with their own memories

Question 24

What is memory conformity

Answer 24

Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right

Question 25

Evaluation of the effect of misleading information on EWT

Answer 25

-Real world applications in the criminal justice system -Evidence challenging the substitution explanation -Evidence does not support memory conformity

Question 26

How has the understanding that misleading information effects EWT helped to improve the criminal justice system

Answer 26

-The consequences of inaccurate EWT are serious, as wrongful convictions can occur. Therefore, it is crucial that individuals within the criminal justice system, such as police officers and juries, are aware of how misleading information can distort eyewitness memory. -For example, research into post-event discussion and leading questions has led to the development of the Cognitive Interview, which improves EWT accuracy by encouraging open-ended questioning, avoiding leading questions, and reinstating the context of the event. -Therefore, applying this knowledge helps improve the criminal justice system by reducing the risk of wrongful convictions based on unreliable eyewitness testimony.

Question 27

Who conducted research that challenges the substitution explanation

Answer 27

Sutherland and Hayne (2001)

Question 28

Who conducted research that challenges the substitution explanation

Answer 28

Sutherland and Hayne (2001)

Question 30

What did Sutherland and Hayne find in their study

Answer 30

-Their participants recalled central details of an event better than peripheral ones, even when asked misleading questions. This is presumably because their attention was focused on the central features and these memories were relatively resistant to misleading information -Therefore, the original memory of the event survived without any distortion, which is not predicted by the substitution explanation

Question 31

What did Skagerberg and Wright (2008) find in their study on memory conformity

Answer 31

-Conducted a study on memory conformity, investigating how post-event discussion influences the accuracy of eyewitness memory. -Participants were shown two different versions of the same crime scene video, each containing subtle differences (e.g., in one version, a perpetrator’s jacket was light brown, while in the other, it was dark brown). After watching the videos, participants were encouraged to discuss what they had seen with someone who had viewed the other version. They were then asked to recall details of the event individually. Findings: -Instead of simply adopting the memory of the other participant, many blended details from both versions. For example, instead of recalling either a light brown or dark brown jacket, some participants reported a “medium brown” jacket, showing that memory was not entirely replaced but altered.

Question 32

Why may encoding of eyewitness memory only be partial or distorted

Answer 32

Encoding may only be partial and distorted, particularly as most crimes happen very quickly, frequently at night and sometimes accompanied by rapid complex and often violent action.

Question 33

Findings of lotus and palmers studies

Answer 33

Experiment 1: When more intense verbs were used in leading questions, such as smashed, participants were more likely to estimate a higher speed than for when less intense verbs such as ‘contacted’ were used. For example, the mean estimated speed for the verb smashed was 40.5mph while for contacted it was 31.8mph. Experiment 2: Participants who heard the word “smashed” estimated a higher speed than those who heard “hit.”Furthermore, more participants in the “smashed” group (32%) falsely remembered seeing broken glass, compared to 14% in the “hit” group and 12% in the control group.

Question 34

Conclusion of Skagerberg and Wrights study on memory conformity

Answer 34

-This suggests that memory itself is distorted through contamination by post event discussion and not the result of memory conformity