Memory L10-12 Flashcards
Eyewitness Testimony
Evidence supplied to a court from people who saw the crime, based on their memory of the incident. Juries are heavily influenced by eyewitnesses
Leading Questions
Leading questions are questions phrased in a way to encourage a certain answer. The response-bias explanation argues that leading questions do not alter memory, only the answer the person gives. Substitution bias explanation suggests that leading questions cause altered memories because they have misleading information
Leading Questions (Procedure)
Loftus and Palmer 1974
- Showed a film of a crash to 45 American Students, asking them to estimate the speed of the car.
- They used different verbs in the questions they asked the students (contacted,hit,bumped,collided and smashed)
Leading Questions (Findings)
- Participants in the ‘contacted’ edition estimated a speed of 31mph
- Participants in the ‘smashed’ edition estimated a speed of 41mph
- A week later they were asked if they saw any broken glass in the film (there was never any broken glass)
- 32% in the smashed version stated they did
- 12% in the contacted version stated they did
- Shows that leading questions alter memory of an event
Evaluation of Leading Questions
+ Laboratory experiment and was highly controlled. Reduces the chance of extraneous variables. This makes the results more reliable
- Questionable Ecological Validity. The study had people watch a car crash in a film but those who see one in real life may not be susceptible to leading questions
- The study lacks population validity. Asked students who are relatively inexperienced drivers and therefore may be worse at estimating speeds than older drivers. Unable to generalise results to other populations
Post-Event Discussion
Witnesses discuss with co-witnesses with what they have seen. This may lead to a contamination of memory.
Conformity can occur, aiming to gain social approval
Source monitoring - When the original context of information is reconstructed. Alternate accounts of a crime can confuse someone. They may think they witnessed something they only heard from others
Post Event Discussion (Procedure)
Gabbert et al (2003)
- Put participants in pairs and got them to watch different videos of the same event
- In one condition, there was discussion with another individual after watching the video and then recalling it
- In another condition, there was the individuals recount and they did not discuss with one another
Post Event Discussion (Findings)
- 71% of witnesses mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they did not have in their video, picking it up during discussion
Evaluation of Post Event Discussion
+ Population validity. Two different populations, students and older adults were compared between the two groups. There were no significant differences showing that post event discussion affects older and younger people in the same way
- The study lacks ecological validity. Participants know they were in an experiment and perhaps payed more attention to the video than what they might when seeing the event in real life. Therefore, the findings do not reflect real life
- Bodner et al found that in real life, the effects of post even discussion are able to be reduced when participants are warned about this
Anxiety
- A state of apprehension uncertainty and fear
- Comes from a threatening situation
- When anxiety is high, it can impair physical and psychological functioning
Weapon focus Effect
- Where the presence of a weapon increases anxiety
- Therefore, witnesses memory of the crime is affected
- They would pay attention to the greatest threat to them in the situation, the weapon
Procedure of Weapon Focus Effect
Procedure - Loftus (1979)
- Two editions, experimental and control
- Experimental condition was where participants overhear a hostile heated argument with sounds of furniture being thrown and glass being broken, eventually leading to a man coming out with a letter opener covered with blood
- Control condition had participants overhear a conversation between two people about laboratory equipment failure, before a man either grease all over his hands emerged carrying a pen
- Participants were then asked to identify the person from 50 photos
Findings of Weapon Focus Effect
- 33% in the experimental condition correctly identified the person
- 49% in the control correctly identified the person
- Loftus argued this was because people placed their attention on the threat in the event
Evaluation of Anxiety (WFE)
+ Study is supported by Loftus and Burns. One group watched a boy shot in the head and the other watched a non violent crime. Participants were less accurate in the graphic film
- Study lacks ecological validity. Even though they were waiting in the reception area, they could have anticipated that something was going to happen. This can affect the validity of the study
- The Study violated ethical guidelines. Individuals were deceived and not protected from psychological harm. However, you could argue and say that the deceiving was needed to eliminate demand characteristics
- Some people perform better when anxious and it isn’t always going to alter an individual’s memory
Why Standard Interview was Flawed
- Fisher et al studied police interviews over four months
- Found that witnesses were interrupted and not allowed to expand
- Fisher et al argued this contributed to the failure in recall of events from eyewitnesses
Geiselman et al
Developed the cognitive interview to improve police techniques and obtain accurate information from eyewitnesses
- Context Reinstatement. Witness makes a mental image of the situation like the weather and their feelings at the time. They may act as retrieval cues
- Report everything. The interviewer encourages the witness to recall all details about the event. Can highlight overlooked details and trigger other memories
- Recall from changed perspective. Mental recreation of the event from different points of view. Provides a holistic view and reduces effect of schemas
- Recall in Reverse order. Witness asked to recall the event in a different order. Verifies the accuracy of the witness statement
Enhanced Cognitive Interview
Fisch et al
- Encourage witness to relax
- No Distractions
- Open ended Questions
- Offer comments to clarify witness statements
Evaluation of Cognitive Interview
+ Geiselman showed participants a video of a crime and tested recall through Cognitive interview, standard interview and hypnosis. Found that in the cognitive interview, most information was recalled
+ Fisher et al trained Miami police officers. 46% increase in information from witnesses and 90% was accurate
- Cognitive interview is time consuming to implement and requires training and resources
- Koehnken et al found the cognitive interview had the worst amount of accuracy in information given compared to standard interview, perhaps because there’s more detail that is required
- Memon et al reported police officers found recall from changed perspective in the Enhanced cognitive interview misleads witnesses into rethinking rather than what they actually saw
