reconstructive memory

Question 1

aim yullie and catshall

Answer 1

The effect of leading questions on eyewitnesses are on real crime scene

Question 2

method yullie and catshall

Answer 2

Crime scene: vancouver. A thief tied up an owner and stole money and guns from a shop. The owner escaped, went outside and the thief shot him twice. There were 21 eyewitnesses.

Contacted 4 months after the event. 13/21 agreed.
- ½ of the group were asked; “did you see a broken headlight on the getaway car”
“Did you see the yellow panel on the car”
- ½ asked : “did you see the broken headlight on the getaway car”
“Did you see a yellow panel on the car”

They were also asked to rate the days stress on a scale of 1-10
There was no broken headlight and the panel was blue

Question 3

results yullie and catshall

Answer 3

Eyewitnesses were very reliable. Lots of information recalled can be confirmed by the police reports.
10/13 got the answers right
Accuracy was between 79%-84%

Question 4

strengths yullie and catshall

Answer 4

Strengths:
- Though under lab conditions, the context was naturalistic. Though it is not a natural experiment because IV was manipulated unnaturally
- Archival evidence - police reports to double check accuracy
- Consent was given

Question 5

weaknesses yullie and catshall

Answer 5

• Has to use a purposive sample-only legible witnesses can take part
• Not replicable or generalizable due to specificity of incident
• Cannot controll confounding variables and participant difference within them 4 months
• Could be a case of FBM thus making it harder to compare to loftus and palmers
• Researcher bias could play a role in quantifying participant responses
• Lab experiment but naturalistic but has different IVS case study. In the exam it can be both experiment and case study but you would have to mention the interviews for case and iv dv for experimental