Accuracy of eyewitness testimony: Misleading information

Question 1

What is Eyewitness Testimony (EWT)

Answer 1

Evidence given in court by a witness who has seen a crime take place.

Question 2

What is Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) used to do?

Answer 2

Used to identify perpetrators.

Question 3

What can Eyewitness Testimony (EWT) be affected by?

Answer 3

Can be affected by various factors, including misleading information.

Question 4

3 Factors for why EWT might be inaccurate?

Answer 4

Misleading information (leading questions & post-event discussion).

Anxiety (covered separately).

Memory distortions due to external influences.

Question 5

What are Leading Questions?

Answer 5

A question that suggests a certain answer.

Question 6

What are examples of Leading Questions?

Answer 6

Example: “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”

Question 7

How can Leading Questions influence memory recall?

Answer 7

Can influence memory recall.

Question 8

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 1
> Aim

Answer 8

Aim: Investigate effect of wording on speed estimates in car accidents.

Question 9

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 1
> Procedure

Answer 9

45 students watched videos of car accidents.

Asked: “How fast were the cars going when they ___ each other?”

Verbs used: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

Question 10

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 1
> “Smashed” Findings

Answer 10

“Smashed” = highest speed estimate (40.8 mph).

Question 11

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 1
> “Contacted” Findings

Answer 11

“Contacted” = lowest speed estimate (31.8 mph).

Question 12

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 1
> How did leading questions affect the wording on speeding estimates in car accidents?

Answer 12

Leading questions influence recall.

Question 13

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Aim

Answer 13

Aim: Investigate if leading questions alter memory.

Question 14

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Procedure, what did they watch?

Answer 14

Participants watched a car accident.

Question 15

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Procedure, What were they initially asked?

Answer 15

Asked about speed using “smashed” or “hit”.

Question 16

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Procedure, What were they asked one week later?

Answer 16

One week later: Asked if they saw broken glass (there was none).

Question 17

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Findings, “Smashed” condition

Answer 17

16 participants in “smashed” condition reported seeing broken glass.

Question 18

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Findings, “Hit” Condition

Answer 18

Only 7 in “hit” condition reported seeing broken glass.

Question 19

Key Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) – Experiment 2
> Conclusion, What could leading questions do?

Answer 19

Leading questions can change actual memory.

Question 20

Post-Event Discussion (PED) Definition

Answer 20

Definition: When witnesses discuss an event, their memories can be contaminated.

Question 21

Post-Event Discussion (PED) Example

Answer 21

Example: Two people see the same crime but different details—after discussion, their accounts merge.

Question 22

Key Study: Gabbert et al. (2003)
> Procedure of Pairs

Answer 22

Pairs watched different videos of the same crime.
Some discussed before recalling.

Question 23

Key Study: Gabbert et al. (2003)
> Findings of 71%

Answer 23

71% recalled details they didn’t actually see.

Question 24

Key Study: Gabbert et al. (2003)
> Conclusions of conformity effect

Answer 24

Supports conformity effect—witnesses align memories.

Question 25

Repeat Interviewing & Memory Distortion Risks

Answer 25

Each interview increases the risk of altered memory.

Question 26

Repeat Interviewing & Memory Distortion > Children, Larooy et al. 2005

Answer 26

Children are especially vulnerable (LaRooy et al., 2005).

Question 27

Real-Life Example: Oklahoma Bombing > What did first witness recall seeing

Answer 27

First witness incorrectly recalled seeing an accomplice.

Question 28

Real-Life Example: Oklahoma Bombing > Effects of first witness false recall

Answer 28

Later, other witnesses also "remembered" this person. Shows the real-life conformity effect.

Question 29

Evaluation: Supporting Evidence Braun et al. (2002) - Disneyland Study:

Answer 29

Participants were given misleading info about meeting Bugs Bunny or Ariel at Disneyland. Many falsely remembered meeting them, despite neither being possible. Shows how misinformation can create false memories.

Question 30

Evaluation: Limitations of Loftus’ Research > Artificial tasks

Answer 30

Watching videos ≠ real-life crime (lacks emotional impact).

Question 31

Evaluation: Limitations of Loftus’ Research > Foster et al. (1994), participant belief

Answer 31

If participants believe their recall will influence a real case, accuracy increases.

Question 32

Real-World Applications

Answer 32

Used to improve police questioning techniques.

Question 33

Real-World Applications Wells & Olson, (2003), Innocence Project:

Answer 33

72% of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA were based on faulty EWT (Wells & Olson, 2003).