Section 2 : Memory - Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Research on leading questions
Leading Questions – Loftus & Palmer (1974)
Aim: Investigate effect of leading questions on memory recall.
Procedure:
Participants watched car crash clips and were asked: “How fast were the cars going when they [hit/smashed/collided/bumped/contacted] each other?”
Findings:
Word choice affected recall:
“Smashed” = 40.5 mph
“Contacted” = 31.8 mph
Shows leading questions distort memory (misinformation effect).
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Why Leading Questions Affect EWT
Why Leading Questions Affect EWT
Response Bias Explanation – Wording influences response but does not change memory.
Substitution Explanation – Wording changes memory trace, e.g., “smashed” group more likely to recall broken glass (which wasn’t there).
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Post-Event Discussion (PED)
Post-Event Discussion (PED) – Gabbert et al. (2003)
Aim: Investigate effects of discussion on EWT accuracy.
Procedure:
Pairs of participants watched different angles of the same crime and then discussed before individual recall.
Findings:
71% recalled details they had not actually seen (picked up from co-witness).
0% errors in control group (no discussion).
Shows memory conformity due to social approval or assuming others are correct.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Why PED Affects EWT
Why PED Affects EWT
Memory Contamination – Witnesses mix misinformation into their own memory.
Memory Conformity – Witnesses change their recall to match others.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Evaluation
Real-World Application
✅ Strengths
1️⃣ Real-World Application
Loftus (1975): Leading questions can distort memory, causing wrongful convictions.
Findings have improved legal practices, leading to:
Better police questioning techniques (e.g., Cognitive Interview).
Awareness in court cases about unreliable EWT.
✅ Counterpoint: Artificial Tasks & Lack of Emotional Impact
Foster et al. (1994): Lab-based EWT lacks realism – in real crimes, witnesses may be more accurate due to high stakes and emotional involvement.
Watching a video clip does not create the same anxiety or emotional arousal as real-life crime, which can impact recall.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Evaluation
Support for the Substitution Explanation
2️⃣ Support for the Substitution Explanation
Sutherland & Hayne (2001): Participants misled by questions distorted peripheral details, but central details remained intact.
Suggests misleading information changes memory, but not all aspects.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Evaluation
Challenges to Memory Conformity
1️⃣ Challenges to Memory Conformity
Skagerberg & Wright (2008): Witnesses did not fully replace their memory after PED. Instead, they merged details:
Example: If one saw light brown hair and another saw dark brown hair, post-discussion recall = medium brown.
This suggests misinformation does not completely overwrite memory, but creates a blended version instead.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Evaluation
Demand Characteristics – Artificiality of EWT Research
2️⃣ Demand Characteristics – Artificiality of EWT Research
Zaragoza & McCloskey (1989): Participants may guess in EWT experiments to please researchers rather than recalling accurately.
Lab conditions exaggerate memory distortion – in real-life situations:
Witnesses know testimony has legal consequences, so are more careful with recall.
This suggests EWT may be more reliable in real-world settings than lab studies imply.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Misleading info
Evaluation
Extra Evaluation – Do Demand Characteristics Exaggerate the Effects of Misleading Information?
Extra Evaluation – Do Demand Characteristics Exaggerate the Effects of Misleading Information?
Lab studies control variables well, but may overestimate the effect of misleading questions.
In real trials, eyewitnesses face serious consequences for incorrect testimony, making them more cautious.
This means EWT in real-world settings may be more reliable than lab research suggests.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Weapon Focus Effect (Negative Effect of Anxiety on Recall)
Weapon Focus Effect (Negative Effect of Anxiety on Recall)
Anxiety creates physiological arousal → diverts attention from key details.
Study: Johnson & Scott (1976)
Low-anxiety condition: Man walks through carrying a pen.
High-anxiety condition: Man walks through carrying a knife with blood.
Findings: 49% in low-anxiety correctly identified the man vs. 33% in high-anxiety.
Conclusion: Weapon focus effect impairs recall.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Anxiety Can Improve Recall (Positive Effect of Anxiety on Recall)
- Anxiety Can Improve Recall (Positive Effect of Anxiety on Recall)
Stressful situations trigger a fight or flight response, which enhances alertness and memory.
Study: Yuille & Cutshall (1986)
Real-life shooting in Canada; 13/21 witnesses took part.
Findings: Those reporting higher stress had 88% accuracy vs. 75% for less-stressed group.
Conclusion: Anxiety may enhance recall in real-world scenarios.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Explaining the contradictory findings
The Yerkes-Dodson Law (Contradictory Findings on Anxiety and Recall)
Inverted-U theory: Performance improves with arousal to a point, then declines.
Deffenbacher (1983): Meta-analysis of 21 studies found contradictory results.
Conclusion: Anxiety can improve or worsen recall depending on arousal level.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Unusualness, Not Anxiety?
Evaluation
Unusualness not anxiety
❌ Weapon Focus May Be Due to Unusualness, Not Anxiety (Weakness)
Pickel (1998): Conducted a study where participants saw a man carrying:
Scissors (low unusualness, high threat)
Handgun (high threat, high unusualness)
Wallet (low unusualness, low threat)
Raw chicken (high unusualness, low threat)
Findings: Poor recall in highly unusual conditions (e.g., raw chicken, handgun), not just in high-threat situations.
Conclusion: Suggests weapon focus is due to surprise rather than anxiety, challenging the idea that anxiety alone reduces EWT accuracy.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Evaluation
Support for negative effects of anxiety
✅ Support for Negative Effects of Anxiety
Valentine & Mesout (2009): London Dungeon study.
Participants in a high-anxiety condition had poorer recall of a scary person in the attraction.
Conclusion: Supports Johnson & Scott’s findings that anxiety negatively affects EWT.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Evaluation
Support for Positive Effects of Anxiety
✅ Support for Positive Effects of Anxiety
Christianson & Hübinette (1993): Studied real witnesses of bank robberies in Sweden.
Findings: Direct victims (most anxious) had more accurate recall months later.
Conclusion: Suggests high anxiety may improve recall in real-world situations.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Evaluation
Support for Positive Effects of Anxiety
Counterpoint (Weakness)
❌ Counterpoint (Weakness)
Witnesses were interviewed months later, meaning memory decay and post-event discussion may have affected recall.
No control over real-life variables, reducing validity.
Factors affecting accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Anxiety
Evaluation
Problems with the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Weakness)
❌ Problems with the Yerkes-Dodson Law (Weakness)
Oversimplifies anxiety: Assumes only physiological arousal affects recall, ignoring cognitive and emotional factors.
Real-life anxiety is complex and doesn’t always follow an inverted-U pattern.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Steps
Cognitive Interview (CI)
Developed by: Fisher & Geiselman (1992)
Aim: Improve eyewitness testimony (EWT) using psychological insights into memory.
Main Techniques of CI
Report everything – Witnesses recall every detail, even if it seems irrelevant, as small details may trigger important memories.
Reinstate the context – Witnesses mentally recreate the original scene, including weather, environment, and emotions (related to context-dependent forgetting).
Reverse the order – Recalling events in a different order reduces dishonesty and prevents reliance on expectations.
Change perspective – Recalling from another person’s viewpoint disrupts schemas that may influence recall.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)
Developed by: Fisher et al. (1987)
Additional Features:
Focuses on social dynamics (e.g., establishing eye contact, reducing anxiety).
Uses open-ended questions.
Minimises distractions.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Evalutation
Support for Effectiveness
✅ Support for Effectiveness
Köhnken et al. (1999) Meta-analysis (55 studies):
CI led to a 41% increase in accurate recall compared to a standard police interview.
Only studies using older adults showed no difference between CI & standard interview.
Conclusion: CI is effective in helping witnesses retrieve stored but inaccessible memories.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Counterpoint
Support for Effectiveness
Evaluation
❌ Counterpoint: CI May Increase Inaccurate Recall
Köhnken et al. also found an increase in inaccurate details (particularly in ECI).
This suggests CI may sacrifice accuracy for quantity (more info recalled, but not all correct).
Application: Police should treat EWT from CI/ECI with caution and verify details.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Evalutation
Some Elements May Be More Useful than Others
Milne & Bull (2002):
❌ Some Elements May Be More Useful than Others
Milne & Bull (2002):
Not all CI techniques are equally effective.
Best combination = ‘Report Everything’ + ‘Reinstate the Context’ → produced more accurate recall than other elements alone or in combination.
Implication: Suggests that some CI techniques are better than others, weakening the credibility of the overall method.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Evalutation
CI is Time-Consuming
❌ CI is Time-Consuming
CI requires special training for police officers → not always practical for real-world investigations.
Kebbell & Wagstaff (1997):
Many police forces don’t have the time or resources to use the full CI procedure.
Often, only a few elements are used rather than the entire interview.
Practical Issue: If CI isn’t fully applied, its benefits may not be realised.
Improving accuracy of eyewitness testimony
Cognitive Interview
Evalutation Extra
Variations of CI
Variations of CI
Police forces adopt a ‘pick and mix’ approach → using only the techniques they find most effective.
Strength: This makes CI more flexible for real-world applications.
Weakness: Reduces standardisation → hard to compare effectiveness in research studies.
