Yuille And Cutshall Describe

Question 1

What type of study is this and why?

Answer 1

This is an example of a field study because the crime was real but the IV of leading questions was still manipulated after the event.

Question 2

What was the naturally occurring real life crime?

Answer 2

A gun shop in Canada was robbed in broad daylight. As the thief was escaping, the shop owner followed him on to the street. Both had guns. The thief fired twice and the shop owner fired 6 times, the thief was killed.

Question 3

How were the police able to get a detailed account of the incident?

Answer 3

There were many witnesses to the event and all had a clear view. Also, because the witnesses could corroborate each other’s accounts which could then be linked to forensic evidence about the event.

Question 4

What was the main aim of the study? (3 points)

Answer 4

To look at the problems of laboratory research in studying eyewitness testimony
To look at the accuracy of eyewitness accounts
To compare eyewitness accounts taken straight after an incident with those taken four to five months after.

Question 5

What was another aim?

Answer 5

Another aim was to see how eyewitness memory could be affected by leading questions.

Question 6

How long after the gunshooting did this study take place?

Answer 6

four to five months before

Question 7

How many witnesses were asked to take part in the research?

Answer 7

21

Question 8

How many agreed to take part in the research?

Answer 8

13

Question 9

How many had been originally interviewed by the police?

Answer 9

All 21.

Question 10

What happened to the 13?

Answer 10

They were interview by the researchers.

Question 11

How were the interviews conducted and how were they similar to the ones done by the police.

Answer 11

The interviews followed the same style as the police interviews: the participants were asked to describe the event and were then asked questions about it.

Question 12

How many leading questions were added to the researchers interviews?

Answer 12

2

Question 13

What was the first leading question?

Answer 13

one asked about the thief’s car headlight (“did you see the broken headlight?”)

Question 14

What was the second leading question?

Answer 14

The other asked about the car quarter panel (“did you see the yellow quarter panel?”).

Question 15

What were the real facts regarding the leading questions?

Answer 15

The headlight was not broken, and the quarter panel was blue.

Question 16

How many were asked leading questions and how many were asked non-leading variants?

Answer 16

Half and half.

Question 17

What were the two non-leading variants?

Answer 17

(“did you see a broken headlight” and “did you see a yellow quarter panel?”)

Question 18

What were the participants also asked? (two things)

Answer 18

The participants were asked about their emotional state and stress levels before and after the incident, and were also asked whether they had any problems afterwards

Question 19

How were the results on the two seperate questions recorded?

Answer 19

These results were recorded on a 7 point likert scale – 1 being perfectly calm and 7 being extremely anxious.

Question 20

RESULTS. Who recorded more total details?

Answer 20

The RESULTS showed that the researchers recorded more total details than the police

Question 21

how many total details did the police recall?

Answer 21

649 total details

Question 22

How many total details did the researchers recall?

Answer 22

1056 total details

Question 23

What did the research record? (HALF SOMETHING)

Answer 23

The researchers recorded half action, half descriptive details, whereas the police recorded more action details than descriptive details.

Question 24

What were these results due to?

Answer 24

This was largely due to the fact that the researchers asked more about descriptive details than the police.

Question 25

How were the witnesses split?

Answer 25

The witnesses were split into peripheral and central witnesses

Question 26

how many of the witnesses were central and peripheral.

Answer 26

7 of the witnesses were central, and 6 were peripheral

Question 27

What were the accuracy ratings?

Answer 27

Both of these groups were equally accurate in their accounts, with 84% of central witnesses were accurate, and 79% of peripheral witnesses were accurate

Question 28

What were the effects of leading questions?

Answer 28

leading questions did not effect the witness’s memories.

Question 29

What was the conclusion?

Answer 29

Eyewitness statements are accurate, more accurate than laboratory experiments would suggest.

Although fairly equal, central witnesses were more accurate; something laboratory studies can’t capture.

Question 30

What year was this?

Answer 30

1986