factors affecting accuracy of EWT - misleading info Flashcards
what is misleading info?
incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event in the form of:
- leading questions
- post-event discussion between
co-witnesses/people
what is EWT?
refers to the information recalled about a crime by an eyewitness.
- the accuracy of an account can be reduced through the influence of misleading q’s
who researched misleading info affecting EWT?
Loftus and Palmer
outline Loftus and Palmer’s procedure
- 45 American students
- lab experiment, 5 conditions
- ppt’s were shown a video of a car accident
- they were asked to describe what had happened as if they were eye-witnesses
- each condition was asked a specific question: ‘what speed were the cars going when they hit /smashed /collided /bumped/ contacted each other?’
- they then calculated the mean speed estimates for each condition
outline Loftus and Palmer’s findings
- the estimated speech was affected by the verb used
- the verb implied info about the speed, which affected the ppt’s memory of the accident
- smashed: 40.5mph
- collided: 39.3mph
- bumped: 38.1mph
- hit: 34mph
- contacted: 31.8mph
- supports the substitution explanation (i.e. leading questions change the eyewitness’ memory
of the crime), as those who’d heard the word “smashed” were more likely to report having seen broken glass 2 weeks after the crime (despite there being no broken glass)
what is post-event discussion?
describes the discussions that take place between co-witnesses after the
crime has taken place, and is subject to the influence of media and TV reports on the crime, as well as participants’ pre-conceived expectations of how they would imagine the crime
who researched post-event discussion?
Gabbert et al.
outline Gabbert et al.’s research
- using a matched-pairs design
- showed ppt’s a film of the same crime scene, but with different details for each member.
- after engaging in post-event discussions with the other member of each pair and individually completing a test of recall, the researchers found 71% inaccuracy rates of information gained through such discussions
- compared to a 0% control group rate who had worked alone throughout.
evaluation: conflicting evidence (Yuille + Cutshall)
ID: there is conflicting evidence
Q: this comes from Yuille and Cutshall, who investigated the effects of misleading questions on EWT
EX: for example, they conducted an experiment 4 months later, in which a real-life robbery took place in Canada. they found that the 13 EW’s were not affected by leading questions, concluding that misleading info doesn’t affect real-life EWT
AN: this is a limitation as it suggests that Loftus and Palmer’s findings can’t be generalised to real-life EWT, reducing the external validity.
evaluation: unrepresentative sample
ID: Loftus and Palmer’s research can be criticised for using an unrepresentative sample
Q: all of the ppt’s in the research fit into a similar category; e.g. american students, who are not generally representative of the population
EX: for example, this means that they may be less experienced drivers and therefore less confident in their ability to estimate road speeds, reducing the internal validity of the findings
AN: furthermore, this is a limitation as the results may lack ecological validity as the findings cannot be generalised universally.
evaluation: practical applications
ID: however, the research into misleading questions could have beneficial practical applications
Q: this means that findings may be used to warn the criminal justice system about the potential issues with EW evidence
EX: for example, juries could be warned against fully trusting evidence and statements given by an eyewitness, and instead, take into account a range of evidence when making decisions
AN: this is positive as it may benefit the legal system by helping to avoid inaccurate judgements being made in court. further increasing the external validity of the theory
