L10 - Misleading Information and Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards
what is EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY?
EYEWITNESS TESTIMONY (EWT) is the EVIDENCE SUPPLIED TO A COURT by PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEEN A CRIME, based on their MEMORY OF THE INCIDENT.
The evidence CAN INCLUDE AN IDENTIFICATION OF THE PERPETRATOR or DETAILS OF THE CRIME (events, time of day etc).
JURIES are often HEAVILY INFLUENCED BY EYEWITNESSES
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.
The RESPONSE-BIAS explanation argues that LEADING QUESTIONS DO NOT AFFECT MEMORY, but the ANSWER THAT THE PERSON CHOOSES TO GIVE IS AFEFCTED.
However, the SUBSTITUTION-BIAS explanation proposes that LEADING QUESTIONS DISTORT MEMORIES because they CONTAIN MISLEADING INFORMATION.
study on the EFFECT OF LEADING QUESTIONS ON EWT (LOFTUS AND PALMER - PROCEDURE)
LOFTUS AND PALMER showed 45 AMERICAN STUDENTS A FILM of A CAR CRASH and then ASKED THEM TO ESTIMATE THE SPEED THAT THE CARS WERE GOING WHEN THEY CRASHED.
However, DIFFERENT VERBS WERE USED in the question depending on the condition.
The verbs were CONTACTED, HIT, BUMPED, COLLIDED OR SMASHED
study on the EFFECT OF LEADING QUESTIONS ON EWT (LOFTUS AND PALMER - FINDINGS)
The pps in the ‘CONTACTED’ condition estimated the speed as 31MPH but those in the ‘SMASHED’ condition pps estimated the speed as 41MPH.
A WEEK LATER, pps were asked IF THEY SAW ANY BROKEN GLASS, EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS NONE SHOWN IN THE FILM.
32% OF THE PPS in the ‘SMASHED’ condition said there WAS BROKEN GLASS compared to ONLY 12% in the ‘CONTACTED’ condition.
This shows that LEADING QUESTIONS have A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT on what people RECALL and can CHANGE A PERSON’S ENTIRE MEMORY OF AN EVENT
+ LABORATORY EXPERIMENT (EVALUATING LEADING QUESTIONS)
+ LOFTUS AND PALMER’S study was a LABORATORY EXPERIMENT and was therefore HIGHLY CONTROLLED.
This REDUCES THE IMPACT OF EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES, INCREASING THE VALIDITY OF THE RESULTS.
Furthermore, it is EASY FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS TO REPLICATE THEIR RESEARCH study to see if the SAME RESULTS ARE FOUND, which would make the study reliable.
- ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY (EVALUATING LEADING QUESTIONS)
- LOFTUS AND PALMER’S study has QUESTIONABLE ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY.
The pps WATCHED A VIDEO OF A CAR CRASH.
People who witness a REAL CAR ACCIDENT, who have a STRONGER EMOTIONAL CONNECTION TO THE EVENT, MAY NOT BE AS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEADING QUESTIONS
- LACKS POPULATION VALIDITY (EVALUATING LEADING QUESTIONS)
- LOFTUS AND PALMER’S study also LACKS POPULATION VALIDITY.
The study consisted of 45 AMERICAN STUDENTS. Students are LESS EXPERIENCED DRIVERS and MAY BE LESS COMPETENT AT ESTIMATING SPEEDS
Consequently, we are UNABLE TO GENERALISE THE RESULTS OF THIS STUDY TO OTHER POPULATIONS.
OLDER AND MORE EXPERIENCED DRIVERS may be MORE ACCURATE in their judgement of speeds and therefore be LESS SUSCEPTIBLE TO LEADING QUESTIONS
what is POST EVENT DISCUSSION?
POST EVENT DISCUSSION describes how the MEMORY OF AN EVENT can be CONTAMINATED THROUGH DISCUSSING EVENTS with OTHERS due to MISINFORMATION (MEMORY CONTAMINATION)
Also, a DESIRE FOR SOCIAL APPROVAL can LEAD CO-WITNESSES TO REACH A CONSENSUS VIEW of what happened (MEMORY CONFORMITY)
study on the effect of POST EVENT DISCUSSION ON EWT (GABBERT ET AL - PROCEDURE)
GABBERT ET AL put pps IN PAIRS and got them to WATCH A DIFFERENT VIDEO OF THE SAME EVENT so that they each got UNIQUE DETAILS.
In one condition, the pairs were ENCOURAGED TO DISCUSS THE EVENT WITH ONE ANOTHER before INDIVIDUALLY RECALLING THE EVENT.
In the other condition, they DID NOT DISCUSS what they had seen with one another
study on the effect of POST EVENT DISCUSSION ON EWT (GABBERT ET AL - FINDINGS)
71% OF WITNESSES who HAD DISCUSSED THE EVENT went on to MISTAKENLY RECALL DETAILS that they COULD NOT HAVE SEEN THEMSELVES, but that they HAD LEARNT DURING THE DISCUSSION with their partner.
+ POPULATION VALIDITY (EVALUATING POST EVENT DISCUSSION)
+ this study has POPULATION VALIDITY.
TWO DIFFERENT POPULATIONS, STUDENTS AND OLDER ADULTS, were COMPARED and there were NO SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES between these two groups.
This allows us to conclude that POST EVENT DISCUSSION AFFECTS YOUNGER AND OLDER ADULTS IN A SIMILAR WAY
- LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY (EVALUATING POST EVENT DISCUSSION)
- this study LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY. The pps KNEW they were TAKING PART IN AN EXPERIMENT and they therefore are MORE LIKELY TO PAY CLOSER ATTENTION to the DETAILS OF THE VIDEO CLIP.
The results DO NOT REFLECT REAL LIFE where witnesses may be EXPOSED TO LESS INFORMATION
