Factors Affecting EWT- Post Event Discussion

Question 1

Gabbert

Answer 1

Procedure
- 120 participants. Participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet. Condition 1- tested individually- control group. Condition 2- tested in pairs- co-witnesses.
- They were told they had watched the same video, but they had in fact watched of a crime filmed from different angles.
- They were put together after to have a post event discussion. Completed a questionnaire.
Results
- 71% of participants gave information they hadn’t seen.
- 60% said the girl was guilty, despite not seeing her commit the crime.

Question 2

Evaluation support- Good population validity

Answer 2

• One strength is that there was a good population validity.
• Ev- Gabbert- Had 120 participants. Half were students and the other were older people.
• Ex- Post event discussion decreases accuracy; highly generalisable, as not just students but older people too.
• However, there are issues around ecological validity- no surprise. Knew they were taking part in an experiment.

Question 3

Evaluation support- Application to real life

Answer 3

• A strength is that its got good application to real life.
• Ev- Bodner 3 groups: Dyad- post event discussion, Read- read another participants report, Both video- watched an alternative video. They were either warned or not warned about effects of post event discussion.
• Ex- Reduce the effects when warned, dyad group as accurate as read group. They were less likely to include non-witnessed detail.
• However, is this actually fake memory being created or just NSI conformity.