Factors Affecting Eye Witness Testimony

Question 1

Define eye witness testimony.

Answer 1

The account given by people of an event they witnessed.

Question 2

Define the theory of reconstructive memory.

Answer 2

Suggests that recall is subject to personal interpretation dependent on our learnt or cultural norms and values, and the way we make sense of the world.

Question 3

Define schemes in relation to EWT.

Answer 3

People make sense of info by trying to fit it into schemas (mental units of knowledge about the world). Allow us to make sense of what we encounter in order to predict what is going to happen and what we should do. Therefore capable of distorting unfamiliar or unconsciously ‘unacceptable’ info in order to ‘fit in’ with our existing schemas.

Question 4

Define the term misleading information.

Answer 4

Refers to content given to an eyewitness that can influence their recall of an event. Elizabeth Loftus first said this could introduce errors to recall.

Question 5

Define leading questions.

Answer 5

Questions that are phrased in such a way to prompt a particular response

Question 6

Define post event discussion.

Answer 6

The memory of an event may be altered or contaminated by discussing the event with others and / or being questioned several times.

Question 7

Describe research into leading questions.

Answer 7

• 45 students showed 7 films of car crashes
• asked to describe the accident and asked several q’s. Split into 5 groups where the verb in the critical q changed
• what speed was the car going when it hit/smashed/bumped/collided/contacted.
• smashed highest estimates and contacted lowest.
• wasn’t clear if this changed the memory or just how they respond
• returned one week later and asked if they’d seen broken glass (there was none)
• 32% of smashed said yes compared to 14% of hit.

Question 8

Describe research into post event discussion.

Answer 8

• pps in pairs
• watched a video of the same crime from different view points so each member saw different aspects of the crime, and discussed after what they’d seen
• 71% incorrectly reported aspects of the scene they hadn’t seen bu was as mentioned in the discussion, suggesting EW’s go along with each other
• could be because they think the other is correct or to gain approval (memory conformity)

Question 9

Give a strength of misleading information.

Answer 9

Loftus and Palmer found that leading questions influence pps response on speed estimation task and gabbert found post event discussion influenced EW’s

Question 10

Give 2 criticisms of misleading information.

Answer 10

Participants in lab studies aware they’re taking part so not representative of real life

Less emotionally affected in lab experiments than real life - research found that if pps thought their responses would influence the trial, the identification of the robber was less accurate.

Question 11

Give an issue of misleading info

Answer 11

Ethical issues eg unethical to set up a field experiment where a bank robbery is staged as it may emotionally damage pps

Question 12

Give a practical application of misleading info.

Answer 12

Important that professionals in the area are aware of how leading questions and repeated interviewing can impact memory of an event. This could lead to fewer wrongful convictions.

Question 13

Give the fight or flight explanation of why anxiety has a negative affect on EW’s.

Answer 13

Because we are anxious our body enters fight or flight mode, which helps us concentrate on basic tasks for survival rather than complex ones hive won’t benefit survival, such as memorising an event.

Question 14

Give the weapon focus explanation of why anxiety negatively impacts EW’s.

Answer 14

A weapon in a perpetrators hand causes anxiety and distracts attention away from everything else. The eyewitness focussed their attention on the weapon so can’t give an accurate account of anything else.

Question 15

Describe research into the negative affects of anxiety on EW’s.

Answer 15

Pps sat in a waiting room and heard a heated argument next door. They then saw a man running through the room with a pen covered in grease (low anxiety) or a knife covered in blood (high anxiety). They then had to identity the man out of 50 pictures. High anxiety = 33% whereas low anxiety was 49%.

Question 16

Describe how high anxiety positively impacts EW’s.

Answer 16

High anxiety leads to the production of long lasting memories so high anxious witnesses can give accurate testimonies. Evolutionary psychologists suggest it would be better to remember emotionally important events so you can identify similar situations in the future and know how best to react.

Question 17

Describe research into the positive effects of EWT.

Answer 17

Testimonies from EW’s following a real life gun fight in Canada were compared w interviews 4/5 months later. Recall was found to be good but those who reported to he most anxious produced the he most accurate testimonies. They may have been motivated to recall events accurately to help the investigation, explaining the difference in research.

Question 18

Give 2 strengths of anxiety as a factor affecting EWT.

Answer 18

Research described (pos and neg)

Conflicting findings have encouraged additional research into and it anxiety might affect people differently so increasing understanding into the area.

Question 19

Give 3 criticisms of anxiety as a factor affecting EWT.

Answer 19

Researchers using real life events - pps might have discussed it, read accounts of the event and/or been interviews by police so subject to misleading info. No control over extraneous variables.

Lab studies challenged - a staged crime (usually shown on video) means pps are aware they’re taking part and might work out they’ll have to recall after. Demand characteristics might lead pps to act in a way that isn’t true.

Weapon focus challenged by suggesting that it isn’t anxiety it is surprise. Pps watched a thief entering a hairdressing salon w scissors (high threat,low surprise), a handgun (high threat, High surprise), a wallet (low threat low surprise) and a raw chicken (low threat high surprise) and pps were poorer at identifying the thief in the High surprise conditions rather than High threat conditions.