L10-12 Flashcards
what is eye witness testimony?
EWT is the evidence supplied to court by people who have seen a crime, based on their MEMORY of an incident
juries are often heavily influenced by EWT
what are leading questions?
leading questions are questions that are phrased in such a way as to encourage a witness to give a certain answer
response-bias explanation: leading q’s do not affect memory, merely the answer a person chooses to give
substitution-bias explanation: leading q’s distort memories = contain misleading info
describe the procedure used to find out about leading questions
Loftus + Palmer (1974):
45 american students a film of a car crash + asked them to estimate the speed that the cars were travelling when they crashed
HOWEVER different verbs were used in question depending on condition
describe the findings of the research about leading questions
‘contacted’ condition:
- parts estimated speed of 31mph
‘smashed’ condition:
- parts estimated speed of 41mph
week later –> parts were asked if they saw any broken glass (even tho there was no broken glass shown in film)
‘contacted’ condition:
- 12% of parts reported seeing glass
‘smashed’ condition:
- 32% of parts reported seeing glass
SHOWS LEADING Q’S HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON PPL’S RECOLLECTION + CAN CHANGE MEMORY OF EVENT
what is the +ve of leading questions?
- study is lab experiment = highly controlled + reduces chance of extraneous variables –> increases validity of results
- makes it easy for psychologists to replicate the research + if same results are found = study is reliable
what are the -ves of leading questions?
- questionable ecological validity n= parts who witness a real car accident would have a stronger emotional connection to event, so not be as susceptible to leading questions
- lacks population validity = consists of 45 American students (students are less experienced drivers compared so less competent at estimating speeds, unlike adults) –> can’t generalise
what is the impact of post-event discussion?
the memory of an event can be contaminated through discussion event with others due to misinformation (memory contamination)
desire for social approval can lead co-witnesses to reach a consensus view of what happened (memory conformity)
what was the procedure used to research post-event discussion?
Gabbert et a. (2003) put parts in pairs and got them to watch a diff video of the same event so that they each got unique details
one condition: encouraged to discuss event with each other before individually recalling event
other condition:
they didn’t discuss what they had seen w/ each other
what were the findings of the research post-event discussion?
71% of witnesses who had discusses went on to mistakenly recall details they didn’t see themselves but learned during discussion w/ partner
what is a +ve of post-event discussion?
study has population validity:
- two diff populations, students + older adults were compared = no sig differences –> conclude that post-event discussion affects young and older adults in a similar way
what is a -ve post-event discussion?
study lacks ecological validity = parts knew they were taking part in an experiment –> more likely to have paid close attention to details of video clip
results don’t reflect real life where witness may be exposed to less info
what is anxiety?
- state of apprehension, uncertainty + fear resulting from threatening situation
- when anxiety is high = impair both physical + psychological functioning
- several psychologists have suggested that when witnessing a crime, anxiety can prevent accurate + detailed recall of crime
describe the weapon-focus effect?
the presence of a weapon during a crime increases anxiety = could impair witness’ memory of crime
ppl will often pay attention to the criminal’s weapon (most threatening in situation) + be able to recall it in great detail but cannot recall much about criminal themselves
what was the procedure used to research the weapon focus effect?
Loftus (1979) wanted to see whether anxiety affected a person’s ability to recognise perpetrator of a crime
experimental condition:
- Loftus arranged for parts to overhear a heated + hostile argument between two ppl –> heard sounds of furniture being overturned + broken glass = man emerged carrying letter opener in blood
control condition:
- parts overheard convo between two ppl about lab equipment failure before man w/grease all over his hands emerged carrying pen
parts then asked to identify person they had just seen from 50 photos
what were the findings of the research weapon focus effect?
only 33% of parts in bloody letter condition recognised photo of person carrying letter opener
49% parts in pen condition recognised photo of person carrying pen
Loftus (1979) argues that this happened cus ppl had focused on bloody letter opener cus they thought it was a weapon that was posing a threat to them, rather than to person carrying it
what is a +ve of anxiety + weapon focus effect?
study is supported by other research studies = Loftus + Burns (1982) allocated parts in one of two conditions:
violent condition:
one group watched a violent short film where a boy was shot in the head
non-violent condition:
other group watched a non-violent short film of a crime
parts were less accurate in recall of violent than non-violent
what are the -ves of anxiety + weapon focus effect?
- study lacks ecological validity –> although waiting in reception area outside lab = may have anticipated something was going to happen, which may affect accuracy of judgement + validity of study
- study violated numerous ethical guidelines = parts were deceived + not protected from psychological harm = may have left experiment very distressed
- Yuille and Cutshall (1986) investigated anxiety in real life shooting = 1 person was killed + another seriously wounded: 21 witnesses o.g. interviewed by police + 13 of witnesses (15-32 aged) agreed to take part in Y + C’s follow-up interview 5 months later
- witnesses were accurate in EW accounts 5 months later + little change found in testimony
- avoided leasing questions + those who were most distressed gave most accurate account
- in real life cases, leading q’s + anxiety don’t have an affect on accuracy of EWT compared to lab experiment
- some ppl have better recall when they’re anxious:
- Christianson + Hubinette (1983) conducted research study using 110 rl EW who had witnessed 1/22 bank robberies
- found that victims were more accurate than onlookers in description of bank robbers
What is a cognitive interview?
Fisher et al. (1987) developed the cognitive interview to improve police techniques to obtain more accurate info from eyewitnesses
What were the 4 main stages of cognitive interview?
1) context reinstatement
2) report everything
3) recall from changed perspective
4) recall in reverse order
Describe the first stage of cognitive interviews
Context reinstatement:
The witness tries to mentally recreate an image of situation = details of environment r.g. Weather conditions + emotional state (feels @ time of incident)
Act as retrieval cues (context-dependent cues) to improve recall
Describe the second stage of cognitive interviews
Report everything:
The interviewer encourages the witness to recall all details about the event = even if details seem unimportant
May highkguth details which have been overlooked + trigger other memroies
What is the third stage of cognitive interviews?
Recall from changed perspective:
Witness tries to mentally recreate situation from different points of view = promotes a more holistic view of event —> may enhance recall + reduce influence of schemas
What is the fourth stage of cognitive interviews?
Recall in reverse order:
Witness is asked to recall the scene in a different chronological order e.g. end to beginning
Should verify the accuracy of the witness’ account + reduce possibility that recall is influenced by schema
Describe the enhanced cognitive interview
- encourage witness to relax + speak slowly = reduce anxiety + enhance recall
- avoid distractions
- use open-ended questions
- offer comments for be,o clarify witness statements (may improve detail)
What are the +ves of cognitive interview?
- Geiselman et al. (1985) showed parts a video of a simulated crime + tested recall using cognitive interview, standard interview or hypnosis
- cognitive led to most info being recalled by EW
- Fisher et al. (1990) trained real police officers in Miami to use enhanced cognitive interview when interviewing EW. On average, found there was 46% increase in amount of info witnesses gave. 90% of info was accurate.
What are the -ves of cognitive interview?
Koehnken et al. (1999) found that witnesses recalled more incorrect info when interviews w/ cognitive interview compared to standard interview technique = more detailed recall may increase chance fo making mistakes
- cognitive interview is time consuming to implement + police officers don’t have time, training or resources to implement it
- Memon et al. (1993) reported that police officers believed that Recall From Changed Perspective stage of the cognitive interview misleads witnesses into speculating about the event they witnessed rather than reporting what they actually saw = police were reluctant to use it
