memory: eyewitness testimony

Question 1

misleading information: leading questions - name of study

Answer 1

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Question 2

misleading information: leading questions: Loftus and Palmer (1974) - procedure

Answer 2

participants watched a film clip of a car accident then gave them leading questions about it, among others, all participants were asked ‘how fast were the cars going when they ____ each other’ - the verb depended on the condition they were in:
- ‘hit’
-‘contacted’
-‘bumped’
-‘collided’
-‘smashed’

Question 3

misleading information: leading questions: Loftus and Palmer (1974) - findings

Answer 3

mean estimated speed for each group:
‘hit’ - 34 mph
‘contacted’ - 31.8 mph
‘bumped’ - 38.1 mph
‘collided’ - 39.3 mph
‘smashed’ - 40.5 mph

Question 4

misleading information: leading questions - what is response-bias explanation

Answer 4

suggests the wording of the question has no effect on the participants memories, but only influences how they answer
- when a participant gets a question with the verb ‘smashed’ this encourages them to estimate higher

Question 5

misleading information: leading questions - what is substitution explanation

Answer 5

the wording of a leading questions changes the participants memory of the incident

Question 6

misleading information: what is post-event discussion

Answer 6

when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with each other, their eyewitness testimony’s may become contaminated. - because they combine (mis)info from other witnesses with their own memories

Question 7

misleading information: post event discussion - what is the study on this topic

Answer 7

Fiona Gabbert and colleagues (2003)

Question 8

misleading information: post-event discussion: Fiona Gabbert (2003) - procedure

Answer 8

studied the participants in pairs.
each participant watched a video of the same crime, but filmed from different POVs, so some could see certain elements that others couldn’t.
both participants then discussed it and individually recalled it.

Question 9

misleading information: post-event discussion: Fiona Gabbert (2003) - findings

Answer 9

71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they didn’t see but picked up in discussion.
In the control group, where there was no discussion, there was 0%

Question 10

misleading information: post-event discussion: Fiona Gabbert (2003) - conclusions

Answer 10

witnesses often go along with each other
- to gain social approval
- or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong
this phenomenon is called memory conformity

Question 11

misleading information: evaluation - real-life applications

Answer 11

very practical for uses in the real world, where the consequences of inaccurate eyewitness testimony can be severe.
therefore the research can be used to improve the legal system e.g. the cognitive interview

Question 12

misleading information: Evaluation: Loftus and Palmer (1974) - artificial tasks

Answer 12

watching a film clip is very different to witnessing a real accident, especially because it lacks the stress. - some evidence that emotion affects memory
- Is a limitation because the findings of studies that use artificial tasks may not be applicable to real accidents

Question 13

misleading information: evaluation - individual differences

Answer 13

some evidence suggests older people give less accurate eyewitness testimony than young people.
Anastasia and Rhodes (2006) found people in age groups 18-25 and 35-45 were more accurate than people aged 55-78. - but all groups were more accurate when identifying people their own age (age bias)

Question 14

anxiety: what is anxiety

Answer 14

a state of emotional and physical arousal, these emotions could be worry, fear, feelings of tension

Question 15

anxiety: negative effects on recall - explain why

Answer 15

the physiological arousal anxiety creates prevents us from paying attention to important cues, so recall is worse

Question 16

anxiety: negative effects on recall - name of study and aim

Answer 16

Johnson and Scott (1976) researched the effect of weapons (which create anxiety) on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony

Question 17

anxiety: negative effects on recall: Johnson and Scott (1976) - procedure

Answer 17

told participants they were taking part in a lab study. when they were in a waiting room, they overheard an argument in the next room, following this a man walked out.
- ‘low anxiety’ condition - man walked past them with an exploded pen
- ‘high anxiety’ condition - sound of breaking glass, then man walked past them with a paper knife covered in blood

Question 18

anxiety: negative effects on recall: Johnson and Scott (1976) - findings

Answer 18

participants then picked out the man from a set of 50 photos
49% from the low anxiety condition identified him, 30% from the high anxiety condition
The tunnel theory argues the witnesses attention narrows to focus on the weapon.

Question 19

anxiety: positive effects on recall: Explain why

Answer 19

anxiety can trigger the fight-or-flight response which causes the body to go into a state of alertness and improves our memory because we become more aware of cues

Question 20

anxiety: positive effects on recall: name study

Answer 20

Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Question 21

anxiety: positive effects on recall: Yuille and Cutshall (1986) - procedure

Answer 21

conducted a study of a real-life shooting in a gun shop where the owner shot a thief dead in front of 21 witnesses - 13 took part in the study.
Held interviews 4-5 months after the crime and compared them to the original police interview. witnesses were asked to rate how stressed they felt at the interview on a 7 point scale and asked if they had any emotional problems since the crime.

Question 22

anxiety: positive effects on recall: Yuille and Cutshaw (1986) - findings

Answer 22

accuracy was determined by the number of details in each account.
the witnesses were very accurate in their accounts and there was little change.
participants who reported the highest levels of stress were more accurate - 88% correct compared to 75% for less stressed group.

Question 23

anxiety: explaining the contradictory findings

Answer 23

according to Yerkes and Dodson (1908) the relationship between emotional arousal and performance looks like a ‘∩’
Deffenbacher (1983) applied this to EWT,

Question 24

anxiety: evaluation - ethical issues

Answer 24

creating anxiety in participants is risky because it can be potentially unethical as it may cause psychological harm.
this is why real-life studies are so beneficial because researchers don’t have to create the situations