LS7 - Accuracy Of EWT - Misleading Information Flashcards

1
Q

Eye Witness Testimony

A

An account given by people of an event they have witnessed - the ability to remember details of an event.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What Can EWT Accuracy Be Affecting By

A

Misleading Information
Leading Questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Misleading Information

A

Incorrect information given to the eyewitness usually after the event i.e. post event discussion and leading questions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Leading Questions

A

A question that suggests the desired answer to the witness and leads them to given an answer due to the phrasing of the question.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

EWT Study Method

A

Loftus And Palmer - 45 students were shown a car accident. One group asked how fast the cars were, the other group was asked same question but instead of ‘hit’ it was ‘smashed’, ‘bumped’, ‘collided’, ‘contacted’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

EWT Study Results

A

Loftus & Palmer - The verb ‘contacted’ lead to a 31.8mph mean whilst the verb ‘smashed’ lead to a 40.5 mph meap.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

EWT Study Conclusion

A

Loftus And Palmer - When questions are leading, people answer in the direction the investigators want them to.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Post-Event Discussion

A

Witnesses to an event discuss what they experienced afterwards.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

How Does Post-Event Discussion Affecty Accuracy

A

Memory Conformity - Witnesses pick up detail from EWTs as they want social approval or believe others are right
Memory Contamination - Witnesses mix information from other witnesses into their own memories.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Post-Event Study Method

A

Gabbert Et Al - Participants were put in pairs, they watched a video of a crime filmed from diffferent views and had discussions before being interviewed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Post-Event Results

A

Gabbert Et Al - 71% of participants mentioned aspects of the video of they video they hadn’t seen, and 0% of participants in the control group.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Post-Event Conclusion

A

Gabbert Et Al - Witnessses will absorb information from other witnesses, either due to memory contamination/conformity.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Misleading Information Strengths

A

Well Controlled LAb Studies
Application To Real Life

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Misleading Information Weaknesses

A

Watching a video is different to watching an actual event
Watching a stage event on video doesn’t cause anxiety and studies show slight anxiety can improve recall.
In real life, pariticpants are aware of serious consequences however there aren’t in studies so participants are likely to be motivated to be less accurate.
Demand characteristics may have occured as they may have guessed the emphaisised verb meant they were supposed to give a higher predicted speed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Well Controlled Lab Studies (+)

A

EVs are easier to control, meaning the results are more valid, they are also easy to replicate and test for reliability e.g. Loftus & Palmer’s study can be replicated bares.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Applications To Real Life (+)

A

Implies police must be careful in how they phrase questions, and any other witnessses should be prevented from discussing testiomonies with one another as show in Gabbert Et Al’s study.