Factors affecting the accuracy of eyewitness testimony Flashcards
Misleading information, including leading questions and post event discussion
What is eyewitness testimony?
The ability of people to remember the details of events, such as accidents and crimes, which they themselves have observed.
What have psychologists investigated?
Psychologists have investigated the accuracy of eyewitness testimony, focusing on the cognitive processes involved in the formation, storage and recall of the information.
What are the three stages eyewitness testimony goes through?
Encoding, Storage, Retrieval
What is the encoding stage?
The form in which memory takes, attention is needed. It can differ in detail and clarity due to the sped at which is occurred, visibility, complexity of the actions.
What is the storage stage?
Witnesses retain information for varying passages of time. Decay can occur within only a few minutes.
What is the retrieval stage?
The presence or absence of cues plus the presence of misleading information may alter this process.
What is misleading information in Eyewitness Testimony?
Information that distorts memory after the event, including leading questions and post-event discussion.
What are leading questions?
Questions that suggest a certain answer (e.g. “How fast was the car going when it smashed into…?”)
Who researched leading questions in Eyewitness Testimony?
Loftus and Palmer to investigate the effect of leading questions on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
What did Loftus & Palmer (1974) task the participants.
Sample = 45 American students, divided into groups of nine
Particiants
Participants watched a video of a car crash and then asked a series of questions about what they had seen
They were then asked a critical question about the speed of the cars
What did Loftus & Palmer (1974) find?
Participants gave higher speed estimates when stronger verbs were used.
e.g. “smashed” = 40.5mph, “contacted” = 31.8mph.
What was the aim of Loftus & Palmer’s second experiment?
To test if leading questions not only affect speed estimates but also change the actual memory of an event.
What was the procedure?
Participants watched a video of a car crash.
Then they were split into 3 groups and asked:
1. “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”
2. “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”
3. Control group – no speed question.
A week later, they were asked: “Did you see any broken glass?” (There was no glass in the video.)
What were the findings?
Participants in the “smashed” group were more likely to say yes to seeing broken glass (32%).
Only 14% of the “hit” group and 12% of the control group said yes.
What does this show?
Leading questions can alter the memory itself, not just influence how we answer — this supports the idea of memory reconstruction.
What is post-event discussion?
When witnesses discuss the event with others, it can lead to memory contamination or memory conformity.
Who researched post-event discussion?
Gabbert et al. (2003) — paired participants saw different videos and then discussed them.
What did Gabbert et al. (2003) find?
71% recalled information they hadn’t seen themselves — showing memory conformity due to discussion.
What is one strength of Loftus & Palmer’s experiments?
High control – lab setting allowed cause and effect between leading questions and memory distortion to be clearly shown (high internal validity).
How does Loftus & Palmer’s research have real-world application?
It shows the dangers of misleading questions in eyewitness testimony, helping improve police interview techniques and reduce wrongful convictions.
What is a limitation of Loftus & Palmer’s study related to ecological validity?
Watching videos of crashes lacks emotional realism — real-life events may produce stronger, more accurate memories (low mundane realism).
Why are demand characteristics a limitation of Loftus & Palmer’s study?
Participants may have guessed the aim and responded in line with expectations, especially in the second experiment with the broken glass question.
What is one strength of Gabbert et al.’s study?
Real-world relevance – shows how post-event discussion can distort memory, helping improve legal procedures like separating witnesses.
How does Gabbert et al.’s study have strong internal validity?
The use of a lab setting and controlled video footage means the effect of post-event discussion was isolated.
What is a limitation of Gabbert et al.’s study related to realism?
The crime video lacked emotional impact, so memory distortion might be less severe or different in real-life, emotionally charged situations.
What individual differences are a limitation of Gabbert et al.‘s study?
It doesn’t account for how age, confidence, or social influence may affect a person’s likelihood to conform during post-event discussion.
Why does post event discussion affect eyewitness testimony?
One explanation is memory contamination, when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become altered or distorted. This is because they combine misinformation from other witnesses with their own memories.
