FACTORS AFFECTING EWT ACCURACY Flashcards
what is “misleading information”?
- incorrect info given to an eyewitness after the event
- can affect how somebody remembers it or answers about it
EX. - leading questions
- post-event discussion
what is a leading question?
- question that suggests an answer, because of the way it was phrased
describe Loftus and Palmer’s “response-bias study”
- ppts into 5 groups of 9, who all watched a video of a car crash
- asked the question “how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted with each other?”
describe Loftus and Palmer’s “substitution study”
- 3 groups of 50 ppts, watched a video of a car accident
- each group was either asked “how fast… smashed into each other” , “how fast… hit each other” , or weren’t asked anything (control)
- a week later, ppts asked “did you see any broken glass?”
explain the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s “response-bias” study
- using the verb “smashed” resulted in faster speeds given by ppts, than when “contacted” was used
- suggests that the wording of questions influences how someone decides how to answer a question
- “hit” and “smashed” led to the belief that the cars were driving much faster than they actually were
outline Loftus and Palmer’s substitution explanation
- results due to the changing of critical word
- altered how ppts saw the event
- the verb, “smashed” influenced ppts to think they saw broken glass
state the 2 reasons for the outcome for post-event discussion
- influences accuracy of the witness’ recall of the event, due to either
- memory contamination
- memory conformity
define memory contamination
- EWT may become distorted
- they combine information from other witnesses with their own
define memory conformity
- Gabbet et al stated that witness’ go along with each other for social approval
- believe that others are right
- their actual memory is unchanged
outline Gabbet et al’s study on memory conformity
- pairs of ppts to watch videos of the same car crash at different angles
- pair then discusses the video
- ppts then had their recall tested
outline the findings of Gabbet et al’s study
- 71% of ppts recalled events that they had heard during the discussion stage
- for the control group, corresponding figure was 0%
- confirms memory conformity
how did Foster et al criticise Loftus and Palmer’s findings
- stated that EWT’s are affected by the real situation
- Loftus and Palmer’s study was in a non-stressful environment
- weakness, as EWT may be more dependable and misleading info may not have that large of an effect
- outline Sutherland & Hayne’s research into central details
- how is this a limitation for misleading info’s affect on EWT
- asked ppts misleading questions after showing them a video clip
- recall was more accurate for central details than peripheral ones
- suggests that central details were resistant to change, not predicted for by substitution explanation
outline the investigation into the weapon focus effect as playing a negative role in EWT
- Johnson & Scott had 2 groups of ppts
- sat in reception
- one group saw a man with a pen covered in grease
- second group saw a man running with a knife
- ppts asked to identify the man from 50 photos
- state the findings of Johnson & Scott’s weapon focus study
- state their conclusion
- 49% in “no weapon” condition could correctly identify the man
- 33% in “weapon” condition could correctly identify the man
- ppts who saw the knife experienced higher anxiety
- therefore, focused attention on the knife, not the man
outline Pickel’s investigation into unusualness vs threat
- 5 groups of ppts shown a video of a hair salon
- shown man with either scissors, handgun, wallet, raw chicken or nothing
- ppts filled out questionnaire about the video
state the findings of Pickel’s study and how they limit Johnson & Scott’s “weapon focus theory”
- mean results on the memory test were lowest for the most unusual items, not the most threatening
- suggests that weapon focus effect is due to unusualness, not anxiety
- tells us nothing about anxiety’s effect on EWT
outline Valentine & Mesout’s “Labyrinth of Horror”
- ppts wore heart monitors to measure anxiety
- placed in “high anxiety” or “low anxiety” group
- asked to describe a person in the labyrinth of horror
state Valentine & Mesout’s findings and how they strengthen Johnson & Scott’s “weapon focus theory”
- 17% of high anxiety identified correctly
- 75% of low anxiety identified correctly
- suggests that high anxiety has negative effects on EWT
outline Yuille & Cutshall’s investigation to show anxiety’s positive effect on recall
- witnesses from a shooting interviewed 5 months after incident
- answers compared with original police interviews
- accuracy determined by number of details
- anxiety measured by a 7 point scale
state the findings of Yuille & Cutshall’s investigation into anxiety having a positive effect on recall
- ppts accuracy changed very little
- ppts with higher stress had 88% accuracy
- ppts with lower stress had 75% accuracy
- suggests anxiety may enhance EWT accuracy in real life
how did Christianson & Hubinette’s interviews support anxiety as having a positive effect on EWT
- interviewed 58 witnesses to a bank robbery
- direct witnesses had higher accuracy than indirect witnesses
outline a limitation of Yuille & Cutshall’s research into positive effects of anxiety on EWT
- interviewed several months after incident
- lack of control of confounding variables during this time
- effects of anxiety may have been overwhelmed by other factors
- could not properly be assessed
- invalidating their research
state the Yerkes-Dodson Law
- relationship between emotional arousal and performance looks like ∩
- too much or too little anxiety produces poorer recall
state a problem with the inverted U-theory
- ignores multiple elements of anxiety: cognitive, behavioural, emotional
- focuses on physical arousal, not the way we think about the situation
