factors of eyewitness testimony Flashcards
what is eyewitness testimony?
ability of people to remember details of events
e.g. accidents and crimes, which they themselves have observed
what are the 3 factors that can affect the accuracy of eyewitness testimony?
leading questions
post event discussionn
anxiety
what is misleading information?
this is when incorrect information is given to the eyewitness after the event (post event information)
what are the 2 factors of misleading information?
leading questions
post-event discussion
what are leading questions?
a question which, because of the way its phrased, suggest a certain answer
what is an example of leading questions?
“was the knife in the accused’s left hand?” this suggests that the answer is ‘left hand’
what is Lofus and Palmer (1974) procedure of their research into leading questions?
they got participants (students) to watch film clips of car accidents- then gave questions about it
in the critical question (a leading question) participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling: “about how had were the cars going when they hit each other?”
this is a leading question as the word ‘hit’ suggests that the car was travelling quite fast
5 groups of participants were given a different verb in the critical question- hit, contacted, bumped, collided, smashed
what is Lofus and Palmer (1974) findings of their research Into leading questions?
the mean estimated speed was calculated for each participant group
the verb, contacted, resulted in a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph, perhaps because the verb ‘contacted’ lacks the impression of a high speed collision occurring
the verb, smashed, resulted in a mean estimated speed of 40.5 mph
the leading question biased the eyewitness recall go an event
what are the two reasons that affect eyewitness testimony?
response-bias explanation
substitution explanation
what is response-bias explanation?
it is when the wording of the questions has no real effect on the participants memories, but just influences on how they decide to answer.
when a participant gets a leading question using the word ‘smashed’, this encourages them to choose a higher speed estimation
what was Loftus and Palmers second experiment?
Lofus and Palmer (1974) did a second experiment that supported this explanation. the wording of a leading question changes the participants memory of the film clip. participants who originally heard ‘smashed’ were later more likely to report seeing broken glass (there as none) than those who heard ‘hit’. the critical verb altered their memory of the incident.
what is post event discussions?
it is when an eyewitness discusses what happened between the event occurring and them being questioned about it.
what is Gabbet’s research into the effects of post event discussions?
he studied the participants in pairs. each participant watched a video of the same crime but filmed from different points of each view, meaning that each participant could see elements in the event that others could not. both the participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.
what were the findings of Gabbert’s research into the effects of post event discussion?
they found the 71% of participants mistakenly called aspects of the event that they didn’t see in the video but picked up in the discussion.
in a control group where there was no discussion the results were 0%
what is memory contamination?
Memories become altered or distorted because they combine information from other witnesses with their own memories.
they reconstruct their memory of the event using information they witnessed and information they have been told by others.
what is memory conformity?
Witnesses go along with each other to win social approval or because they think others are right.
their memory of the event remains unchanged.
AO3: how is ‘lab experiment’ a strength to Loftus and Palmers research into the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony?
one strength to Loftus and Palmers research into the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony is that they used a lab experiment. this means that all extraneous variables were controlled meaning any change in the IV was solely due to the DV. some extraneous variables they controlled were every participant seeing the same clips of the same car accident, each participant being asked a question phrased in the exact same way, close in time to the accident. therefore, the research can state causality as they can be sure that the change was due to the way the questions were phrased and not some other factor.
AO3: how is ‘low ecological validity’ a limitation to Loftus and Palmers research into the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony?
one limitation to Loftus and Palmers research into the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony is that it has low ecological validity. this is because low ecological validity is when we are unable to apply it to real life situations, and watching a car crash on a video doesn’t have the same emotional impact as witnessing a real-life accident. this means that in real life there are consequences of the answers you give which leads to the added pressure and this means they may take the task less seriously compared to how they would in real life. therefore, this means that the findings may not represent eyewitness testimony in the real world.
AO3: how is ‘lacks generalisability’ a limitation to Loftus and Palmers research into the effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony?
one limitation to Loftus and Palmers research into effects of leading questions on eyewitness testimony is that it lacks generalisability. this is because a limited sample was used of only American students. this means that it is only representitive of western cultures and doesn’t represent eastern cultures or the general population, as it is likely that other groups of individuals would react differently to American students. therefore, this prevents us from being able to generalise from the findings and apply them to all individuals.
AO3: how is ‘real life application’ a strength to the research into the effects of post event discussion on eyewitness testimony?
one strength to the research into the effects of post event discussion on eye witness testimony is that it can be applied to real life situations. for example, these findings can be applied to the legal system and make people more aware of the inaccuracy of eyewitness testimony, allowing individuals and courts to be more cautious when using eyewitnesses as evidence to a crime. this has also allowed is to create steps to reduce discussion between eyewitnesses as much as possible. therefore, this means we should be able to reduce rhetoric amount of wrongful convictions based on faulty eyewitness testimonys.
AO3: how is ‘lab experiments’ a strength to the research into the effects of post event discussion on eyewitness testimony?
one strength to research into the effects of post event discussion on eyewitness testimony is that they used a lab experiment. this means that all extraneous variables were controlled meaning any change in the IV was solely due to the DV. some extraneous variables they controlled were every participant seeing the same clips of the same crime but from different angles. therefore, the research can state causality as they can be sure that the change was due to the way the questions were phrased and not some other factor. however, the research lacks ecological validity as it is done in an artifical environment by showing them a video of a crime, which is very different to actually experiencing a crime and therefore doesn’t reflect the emotional damage we may experience.
