Yuille and Cutshall (1986)

Question 1

Aim

Answer 1

To determine whether leading questions would affect the memory of eye witnesses at a real crime scene.

Question 2

Method

Answer 2

• 21 eyewitness, 13 study participants.
• Crime scene in Vancouver, thief entered a gun shop, tied up owner, stole money and guns from shop. Owner freed himself, went outside, thief was still there, shot him.
• Police called, thief killed. 21 witnesses interviewed by police.
• Researhers interviewed 13 eyewitnesses 4 months after event. Gave account of incident.
• Leading question asked if they saw ‘a’ broken headlight on the car or ‘the’ broken headlight on the car (there was no broken headlight).
• Asked if they saw ‘a’ yellow panel or ‘the’ yellow panel (panel was blue).
• Stress was rated on 7 point scale.

Question 3

Findings

Answer 3

• Eyewitnesses were very reliable. Large amount of accurate detail confirmed by police reports.
• Did not make errors due to leading questions. 10/13 said no broken headlight or yellow panel.
• Were not afraid during the incident but reported having an ‘adreneline rush’.

Question 4

Strengths

Answer 4

• Archival evidence to confirm memories.
• Although deception was attempted, consent was received and this did not cause undue stress or harm.
• High ecological validity.

Question 5

Limitations

Answer 5

• Not replicable.
• Not generalisable.
• Could be flashbulb memory- cannot be directly compared to Loftus.
• Quantification of qualitative responses is problematic.
• Researcher bias potential.