factors affecting the accuracy of EWT: misleading info Flashcards
AO1: misleading info
incorrect info given to the eyewitness usually after the event
AO1: leading question
questions which because of the way its phrased, suggest a certain answer.
STUDY: Loftus and Palmer (1974)
aim was to investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of
eyewitness testimony.The sample was 45 American students, who were divided into five groups of nine. In a independent measures design, all of the participants watched a video
of a car crash and were then asked a specific question about the speed of the cars. Loftus & Palmer manipulated the verb used in the
question, for example: “How fast were they cars going when they
smashed/ collided/ bumped/ hit/ contacted with each other?”. Found that the estimated speed was affected by the verb used. Shows that the accuracy of EWT can be effected by leading questions.
STUDY 2: loftus and palmer investigated the effect of leading questions further. students watched a one‐minute video depicting a car accident and were then given a questionnaire to complete. One group was asked: “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” Another group was
asked: “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” The final group (control) was not asked about the speed of the vehicles. One week later the participants returned
and were asked a series of questions about the accident. The critical question was: “Did you see any broken glass?”. Found that the participants who were questioned previously using the verb smashed were significantly more likely to report seeing the broken glass and think that the car was going at a faster speed.
AO1: post event discussion
when there is more than one witness to an event and they may discuss what they saw after the event which may influence the accuracy of eye witness’s recall of the event
STUDY: Gabbert (2003)
Participants watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet. The participants were either tested individually (control group) or in
pairs (co‐witness group). The participants in the co‐witness group
were told that they had watched the same video; however, they had
in fact seen different perspectives of the same crime and only one
person had actually witnessed the girl stealing. Participants in the
co‐witness group discussed the crime together. All of the participants
then completed a questionnaire, testing their memory of the event.
Findings: 71% of the witnesses in the co‐witness group recalled information they had not actually seen and 60% said that the girl was guilty, despite the fact that they had not seen her commit a crime.
AO3: limitation- low ecological validity (leading questions)
strength- lab setting
P: loftus and palmer studies had low ecological validity
E/E: participants saw car crash from start to finish which is rare for everyday life
L: does not reflect real life so cannot conclude if eye witness would be susceptible to questioning in the same way
HOWEVER,
they took place in a lab setting which is highly controlled. The questions and verbs were standardised which reduces a chance of extraneous variables
AO3: limitation- low ecological validity (post event discussion)
strength- high population validity
P: low ecological validity for gabbert study
E: participants witnessed different perspectives of the same crime, which is typical to real life but they knew they were in an experiment so would be paying close attention.
L: this doesn’t reflect everyday examples of crime
HOWEVER,
tested 2 different populations which were different ages. Has high population validity
AO3: limitation- other factors
P: anxiety is another factor affecting EWT
E/E: Johnson & Scotts study were participants were left in a waiting room. One group were the ‘no weapon group’ they heard a convo about equipment failure and then saw a man leaving holding a pen and with grease on his hands. The second group was the ‘weapon group’ they heard a heated argument and crashing chairs and then a man running holding a bloody knife. Both groups then shown 50 pictures and asked to identify the man. The ‘no weapon’ group identified the the man more than the ‘weapon’ group. The group exposed to the knife had higher anxiety so more likely to focus on the weapon than the man which reduces the accuracy of EWT.
L: shows other factors need to be considered.
AO3: strength- real world application
P: real world application
E: cognitive interviews developed which get more accurate responses
E: included context reinstatement (mentally recreating an image of the environment), recall from a changed perspective (holistic approach), recall in reverse order (verifies accuracy) and report everything.
L: strength following Loftus’ work on EWT
