factors affecting EWT - misleading information

Question 1

define eye witness testimony

Answer 1

the ability of people to remember the details of events such as crimes or accidents, which they themselves have observed

Question 2

what can the affect the accuracy of eye witness testimony

Answer 2

misleading information- leading questions, post event discussion
effects of anxiety

Question 3

misleading information

Answer 3

incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event

Question 4

leading question

Answer 4

a question asked in a way that suggests you have a preferred answer

Question 5

what are the stages of memory relevant to EWT?

Answer 5

encoding to the LTM,

retention of memories (witness stores memories) ,

retrieval from LTM (witness recalls information at a later date)

Question 6

what are the potential sources of error at each stage ?

Answer 6

encoding - poor viewing conditions, trauma responses eg. fight/flight/freeze

retention - memories may be lost or modified due to decay

retrieval - lack of appropriate cues, leading questions, post event discussion

Question 7

leading questions research

Answer 7

loftus and palmer (1974)

Question 8

loftus and palmer (1974) study aim

Answer 8

to investigate the effect of
leading questions on the
accuracy of eyewitness
testimony

Question 9

describe the experiment done by loftus and palmer (1974)

Answer 9

45 participants were asked to watch video clips of car accidents, and asked what speed the car smashed/collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted the car?

Question 10

findings loftus and palmer (1974)

Answer 10

contacted mean estimate speed - 31.8 mph
smashed mean estimate speed 40.5mph
verb used in the leading questions biased the recall of car speed

Question 11

explanation of findings loftus and palmer (1974)

Answer 11

response bias - ppt unsure of speed so adjusts estimate to fit question

substitution explanation- memory altered by critical verb so ppt recalls the accident differently

Question 12

loftus and palmer secondary experiment

Answer 12

aim - to prove substitution explanation

Question 13

loftus and palmer secondary experiment method

Answer 13

ppts shown a clip showing a car accident. They used 3 conditions - how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? ; how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other? ; 3rd group not asked about vehicle speed.

a week later all ppts returned and were asked ‘did you see any broken glass?’ (there was none)

Question 14

loftus and palmer secondary experiment results & explanation

Answer 14

verb used in original question affected whether the participants thought they saw broken glass. loftus and palmer therefore concluded that the leading question altered memory - substitution explanation

Question 15

Loftus and Palmer (1974) evaluation

Answer 15

+ real world relevance, psychologist explains limitation of EWT in a court case

• artificial lab experiment so low ecological validity (less stressful than seeing a crime in real life)

Question 16

evaluation of substitution explanation

Answer 16

• EWT is more accurate for some aspects than others. Sutherland and Hayne (2001) noticed that even for leading questions, recall of central events was more accurate than recall of small details. Substitution explanation did not predict that central memories would not be distorted by leading questions.

Question 17

post event discussion

Answer 17

when co-witnesses of a crime discuss it together. this may influence the accuracy of witnesses’ recall of events

Question 18

research on post event discussions - procedure

Answer 18

Fiona Gabbert et al (2003) used pairs of participants, each watched the same video of a crime but from a different point of view. Ppts discussed what they had seen before individually completing a recall test

Question 19

Gabbert et al (2003) findings

Answer 19

71% of the pps mistakenly recalled details they did not recall but gained in discussion. Whereas the control group with no discussion had 0% recall of mistakes.

Question 20

Gabbert et al (2003) conclusions

Answer 20

memory contamination -
co-witnesses discuss a crime and their memories become distorted as the combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories

memory conformity-
witnesses go along with each other either to win social approval of because they believe the other witness is right and they are wrong (the actual memory is unchanged)

Question 21

evaluation - evidence against memory conformity

Answer 21

post event discussion affects EWT. In a study, one clip showed a mugger’s hair to be light brown and another showed it to be dark brown. In pairs. ppts they discussed what they had seen, each having seen a different clips. After pps recalled it was said to be medium brown. Memory is distorted via communication in misleading PED, rather than memory conformity.