Memory - EWT : misleading info

Question 1

What is an eyewitness?

Answer 1

Someone who has seen or witnessed a crime and usually present at the time of the incident

Question 2

What is an eyewitness testimony?

Answer 2

People use their memory of the crime to give their account or reconstruction of what happened (usually used to identify a perpetrator)

Question 3

What is misleading information?

Answer 3

Key factor that can affect accuracy of an EWT - incorrect info given to an eye witness following an event

Question 4

What are 2 types of misleading info?

Answer 4

Leading questions and post-event discussion

Question 5

What are leading questions?

Answer 5

Questions phrased in a particular way to suggest a certain answer

Question 6

What is post-event discussion?

Answer 6

When co-witnesses discuss what they have seen / details of a crime or accident following it

Question 7

Leading questions: Procedure used in Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Answer 7

45 American students (divided into 5 groups of 9 ppts.) - watched a video of a car crash and were then asked a leading question
The IV was a manipulation of the verb used in the question: (smashed / bumped / hit / contacted)

Question 8

Leading questions: Findings of Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Answer 8

Estimated speed was affected by intensity of verb used
Smashed - reported average speed of 40.5 mph
Contacted - reported average of 31.8 mph

Question 9

Leading questions: what is the response bias explanation?

Answer 9

Researcher’s question changed the way ppts. responded to question but didn’t affect their actual memory

Question 10

Leading questions: what is the substitution explanation?

Answer 10

Intensity of verb changed the ppts.’ actual memory - this is most likely due to 2nd ‘broken glass’ experiment
Ppts. more likely to report seeing broken glass when questioned using the verb ‘smashed’ compared to ‘hit’. There was no broken glass, so it shows that memories had actually been altered

Question 11

Post-event discussion: Procedure used in Gabbert et al (2003)

Answer 11

Ppts. watched video of girl stealing money and asked through questionnaire what they saw. Tested individually (control) or in pairs (co-witness group) where they discussed what they had seen
Ppts. in co-witness group told they had watched the same video but only one had seen the girl stealing

Question 12

Post-event discussion: Findings of Gabbert et al (2003)

Answer 12

After ppts. in co-witness group discussed together
71% of co group recalled info they hadn’t seen
60% said the girl was guilty, even though they hadn’t seen the girl steal
0% said she was guilty in control group

Question 13

Post-event discussion: What is the memory contamination explanation?

Answer 13

When co-witnesses disturb discuss a crime, they mix info from the other person into their own memory

Question 14

Post-event discussion: What is the memory conformity explanation?

Answer 14

Witnesses often agree with each other to win social approval or because they think the other person is right and they are wrong

Question 15

What is a strength of the research into EWT? - Significant implications for real world and criminal justice system

Answer 15

===> Loftus’s work underpins case of Ronald Cotton (wrongly convicted of rape based on inaccurate EWT from victim). Loftus (1975) emphasises need for caution among police officers when phrasing questions as it could distort memory recall. Practical implications of research highlight potential to make positive impact on criminal justice system

Question 16

What is a limitation of Loftus and Palmer’s study? - Lacks mundane realism

Answer 16

===> Ppts. watched film clips instead of real accident and artificial setting won’t accurately capture emotional nature of witnessing car crash in real life (anxiety could influence memory accuracy) Findings may have limited generalisability to real-life cases and ecological validity is compromised. Overly pessimistic views of EWT could lead to unjust outcomes

Question 17

What is a limitation of the research into leading questions? - Too pessimistic of EWT accuracy

Answer 17

===> Yuille and Cutshall (1986) found evidence of greater accuracy of EWT in real life. Witnesses to real armed robbery in Canada gave very accurate crime reports even after 4 months, despite being asked 2 misleading questions. Shows misleading info may have more influence on ppts. in lab setting than real life (demand characteristics or lack of consequences?). Field experiments like Y+C may provide better insight into EWT in real life

Question 18

What is a limitation of research into misleading info? - Individual differences aren’t considered

Answer 18

===> Suggests older people are less accurate than younger people. Anastari and Rhodes (2006) found that 18-25 and 35-45 years olds more accurate than 55-78 in facial recognition task. However, all age groups were accurate when identifying people of their own age group (age bias). Suggests findings on EWT may have low population validity as they may not be generalisable to all age groups. Results should be generalised with caution

Question 19

What is a strength of the research into misleading info? - Substantial support it has collected

Answer 19

===> Loftus’s Disneyland study serves as example. Ppts. exposed to fabricated advert describing meeting and shaking hands with Bugs Bunny, character from different entertainment company, at Disneyland. Ppts. reported vividly remembering shaking hands with him in childhood, despite this being impossible. Highlights how misleading info can have profound impact on memory, leading to creation of inaccurate or entirely false recollections