4.1.2 EYE WITNESS TESTIMONY + COGNITIVE INTERVIEW

Question 1

what is eye witness testimony and the issue with it?

Answer 1

• important in criminal trials
  -> important for juries when making decisions
• there’s an over-simplification and psychological research into EWT has shown it’s often unreliable
  -> in 75% of cases, when individuals found to have been wrongly
  convicted by DNA evidence, the original EWT which lead to the
  conviction was inaccurate
• it’s influenced how courts conduct witness statements and the basis of convictions

Question 2

what research is there into the influence of schema?

Answer 2

BARTLETT (1932)
- memories aren’t accurate snapshots of events but are ‘reconstructions’

• these are influenced by active schemas
• schemas are internal, mental representations of the world
• they cause us to interpret sensory info in a pre-set manner
• they affect the reliability of EWT, witnesses aren’t just recalling facts as they happened, they’re reconstructing memories

Question 3

what were the findings of the ‘War of the Ghosts’ story that Bartlett studied in 1932

Answer 3

• when Western cultural ppts were told the story it didn’t make sense from a cultural viewpoint
• upon recall, memory of the story was distorted to fit a Western cultural viewpoint
• demonstrates how memory can be affected by schemas

Question 4

how does misleading information affect the accuracy of EWT?

Answer 4

through
- leading questions
-> implies the desired answer that the person asking it wants
-> links to misleading info as it can prompt the responder to give certain information
- post-event discussion
-> when co-witnesses discuss an event even after its happened

• research shows EWT is affected by experiences occurring after you witness the event
• TV drama often shows judges accusing the barrister of ‘leading the witness’
• this means they’re asking the questions which are suggestive of the answer they’re looking for

Question 5

Loftus and Palmer investigated how misleading info could distort eyewitness testimony accounts through leading questions in 1974
what was their aim?

Answer 5

• to investigate how information provided to a witness after an event will influence their memory of that event

eg) leading questions

Question 6

what was their method?

Answer 6

• two laboratory experiments
• independent measures design
• IV = verb used
• DV = the estimate of speed of whether the ppts saw broken glass

Question 7

what was the first experiment?

Answer 7

• 45 student participants were shown short video clips
• they were spilt into 5 groups, with 9 ppts in each
• shown slides of a car accident involving a number of cars and asked to describe what had happened as if they were eyewitnesses
• all ppts were asked
  -> how fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?
• each group was given a different verb to fill in the blank
• only one verb was given to each ppt

Question 8

what were the results?

Answer 8

smashed - 40.8
collided - 39.3
bumped - 38.1
hit - 34.0
contacted - 31.8

• how the question was phrased influenced the ppts speed estimates
• when the verb ‘smashed’ was used, ppts estimated the cars were travelling much faster than when the vern ‘contacted’ was used

Question 9

what was the procedure of the second experiment?

Answer 9

• 150 student ppts were shown a short film that showed a multi-
  vehicle car accident and then they were asked questions about it
• the ppts were split into 3 groups (with 50 in each group)
  one group was asked:
  ‘how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?’
  second was asked:
  ‘how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’
  third group wasn’t asked about the speed
• one week later, all ppts returned and were asked:
  ‘did you see any broken glass?’
• there was no broken glass in the film

Question 10

what were the results of experiment 2?

Answer 10

• ‘did you see any broken glass?’

smashed:
yes - 16
no - 34

hit:
yes - 7
no - 43

control:
yes - 6
no - 44

• the results show that the verb used in the original question influenced whether the ppts thought they’d seen broken glass

Question 11

evaluate the experiments in context of the participants?

Answer 11

• they were all students
• there are several ways in which students might not be representative of the general population
• this may include age, driving experience, educational experience
• they may be used to paying attention and being tested

Question 12

evaluate the experiments in context of the usefulness?

Answer 12

• has many real life applications
• police questioning witnesses
• teachers asking / setting questions
• is easy to replicate
  -> because the method was a laboratory experiment which
  followed a standardised procedure

Question 13

evaluate the other issues with these experiments?

Answer 13

• how easy it is to estimate speed?
  -> may be easier for some groups than others
  -> eg) taxi drivers / police officers
• the driver of the car isn’t mentioned in the study
  -> what if they had been visible as an elderly woman / young man?
• what if the car had been a Porsche or a Ferrari?
• lacks mundane realism
  -> the video clip doesn’t have the same emotional impact as
  witnessing a real-life accident
  -> so the research lacks ecological validity

Question 14

how does post event discussion cause issues for EWT?

Answer 14

• when co-witnesses to a crime discuss it, the testimony can become contaminated

Question 15

what did Gabbert study in 2003?

Answer 15

• ppts watched a video of a crime, filmed from different viewpoints
• each ppt could see elects of the event that others couldn’t
• ppts then discussed what they’d seen before comparing recall

Question 16

what did he find / conclusion?

Answer 16

• 71% of ppts mistakenly recalled aspects of the event they didn’t see but picked up in discussion
• control group = 0%
• conclusion: witnesses often go along with each other to win social approval or because you may be right and they may be wrong
• this is called memory conformity

Question 17

what is the supporting evidence towards this study?

Answer 17

• Loftus and Palmer suggests EWT in real life is generally inaccurate and hence unavailable
• lack of ecological validity in study
• Foster (1994) found if ppts thought they were watching a real-life robbery and their response would influence the trial, then their identification of the robber was more accurate

Question 18

is there any real world application?

Answer 18

• EWT research is important to ensure innocent people aren’t convicted on the basis of faulty EWT

Question 19

how do individual differences apply?

Answer 19

• a number of studies (eg. Schacter et al 1991) have found that compared to younger subjects elderly people have difficulty remembering the source of their info
• they are more prone to the effect of misleading information
• shows that I.D are an important factor when assessing the reliability of EWT

Question 20

what is the effect of anxiety on EWT?

Answer 20

• negative effect on recall
• leads to increased arousal in the body which can stop us from paying attention to important cues (such as the attackers face)
• therefore recall is worse

Question 21

what is the weapon focus effect?

Answer 21

if the crime is violent
- high anxiety and levels if arousal may focus attention on the central details of the attack

• eg) the weapons used, instead of the perpetrator’s face

Question 22

what did Johnson and Scott do in 1976?
and what did they find?

Answer 22

• ppts in a waiting room overheard a heated discussion in the room next door

condition 1:
- man emerges holding ink-stained pain (low anxiety)
- 49% of ppts accurately identified the man

condition 2:
- man emerge holding blood stained knife (high anxiety)
- 36% of ppts accurately identified the man

Question 23

what was their conclusion?

Answer 23

• anxiety makes EWT worse because they focus on the knife instead of the face

Question 24

how does anxiety has a positive effect on recall?

Answer 24

• stress of witnessing a crime / accident creates anxiety
• fight of flight response is triggered
  -> increases our alertness
  -> improves our memory for the event
  -> we’re more aware of cues in the situation (such as the attacker’s face)

Question 25

what did Yuille and Cutshall do in 1986?

Answer 25

• group of 21 customers in a gun shop in Vancouver witnessed the owner of the shop shoot and kill a thief
• they all gave statements to the police
• 13 of these original witnesses were interviewed 5 months later by Yuille and Cutshall
• original statements were compared with the interviews for accuracy
• ppts were also asked to rate how stressful they found on the event
• ‘on a scale of 1-7 how stressful did you find the event?’

Question 26

what is the Yerkes-Dodson law?

Answer 26

• states that when anxiety is at low and high levels, EWT is less accurate then if anxiety is at a medium level (optimal level)
• recall improves as anxiety increases up to an optimal point and then declines
• when we’re in a state of anxiety, we tend to focus on whatever is making us feel anxious or fearful
• we exclude other info about the situation
• if a weapon is used to threaten a victim
• their attention is likely to focus on it
• consequently, their recall of other info is likely to be poor

Question 27

what does the Yerkes-Dodson curve look like?

Answer 27

Question 28

what’s a strength of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?

Answer 28

• has high ecological validity
• compared with lab studies which tend to control variables and use student populations as research participants

Question 29

evaluate a weakness of this study?

Answer 29

• there was an extraneous variable
• witnesses who experienced the highest levels of stress where actually closer to the event
• this may have helped with the accuracy of their memory recall

Question 30

what is the real world application?

Answer 30

We can apply the Yerkes Dodson effect to predict that stressful incidents will lead to witnesses having relatively inaccurate memories as their anxiety levels would be above the optimum – We can avoid an over-reliance on eyewitness testimony that may have been impacted by anxiety

Question 31

what is the reduced accuracy of information due to?

Answer 31

to surprise rather than anxiety – Pickel found that identification was least accurate in high surprise conditions rather than high threat conditions – The weapon focus effect may be related to surprise rather than anxiety therefore research may lack internal validity.

Question 32

what is the cognitive interview?

Answer 32

• police technique for interviewing witnesses to a crime which encourages them to recreate the original context in order to increase the accessibility of stored information

Question 33

what techniques does the cognitive interview use?

Answer 33

1) reinstate the context

2) change of narrative order

3) change perspective

4) report everything

Question 34

what is the cognitive interview based on?

Answer 34

• based on two principles

1) organisation
- the way memory is organised means memories can be accessed in a number of ways
- a series of actions can help

2) cue-dependency
- memories are cue-dependent
- they use situational + emotional cues present during the original encoding

Question 35

what is reinstating the context?

Answer 35

• helps the interviewees go back in their mind to the context in which they encoded the memory

eg) how were they feeling emotionally at the time, what were they doing just before the event, what were they wearing etc

• going back in mind
• external / internal cues could trigger recall

Question 36

what is changing the narrative order?

Answer 36

• telling the story back to front
• changing the order in which the events are recalled can be very beneficial as it ensures that details aren’t skipped and gaps can be filled
• eg) the witness might be asked to repeat their account in reverse order
• blocks the effect of shema
• stops expectations impacting memory

Question 37

what is changing the perspective?

Answer 37

• you’ve asked to describe the incident from the perspective of other people who were present at the time
• eg) recall from the offender’s point of view
• blocks the effect of schema
  ie) the expectations of being a victim

Question 38

what is the technique of report everything?

Answer 38

• you’re required to report back any information about the event that you can remember
• even if it doesn’t seem to have a bearing on the crime
• should trigger further details and memories

Question 39

what is the Enhanced Cognitive Interview (ECI)?

Answer 39

Fisher and Geiselman (1987)

• amended version of the CI
• builds a trusting relationship between interviewer and witness
• this improves communication between the two

Question 40

what does the enhanced cognitive interview include ideas about?

Answer 40

• reducing anxiety
• minimising distractions
• asking open-ended questions
• getting the witness to speak slowly
• interview needs to know when to establish eye-contact and when to relinquish it
  (they may receive training for this)

Question 41

what are some criticisms of the cognitive interview?

Answer 41

• it’s time consuming to conduct and takes much longer than a standard police interview
• it’s time consuming / expensive to train police officers to use this method
• meaning it’s unlikely that the ‘proper’ version of the cognitive interview is used
• some elements of the CI may be more valuable than others
  eg) research has shown that using a combination of ‘report everything’ and ‘context reinstatement’ produced better recall than any of the other conditions individually