Eye-witness testimony - misleading information

Question 1

What is an eye-witness?

Answer 1

Someone who has seen or witnessed a crime, usually present at the time of the incident. They use their memory of the crime to give their testimony or a ‘reconstruction’ of what happened.

Question 2

Who researched EWT?

Answer 2

Loftus and Palmer (1974)

Question 3

Describe Loftus and Palmers procedure in their experiment on EWT

Answer 3

45 student participants watched film clips of car accidents and were then asked leading questions about speed. In the critical question (leading question or misleading information) the participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were going. There were 5 different groups of participants. Each group was given a different verb in the critical question, varying in severity: ‘contacted’, ‘hit’, ‘bumped’, ‘collided’ and ‘smashed’

Question 4

How many participants were in the Loftus and Palmer ‘car crash’ study?

Answer 4

45 student participants

Question 5

What were the 5 verbs used in Loftus and Palmer’s ‘car crash’ study?

Answer 5

Contacted
Hit
Bumped
Collided
Smashed

Question 6

What were Loftus and Palmers findings in the ‘car crash’ study?

Answer 6

The mean estimated speed was calculated for all 5 groups
The verb ‘contacted’ (the least severe) gave a mean speed of 31.8mph. The verb ‘smashed’ (the most severe) gave a mean speed of 40.5mph. This showed that the leading question, in this case the severity of the verb used, biased the eyewitness’s recall of an event

Question 7

What was the mean speed when the least severe verb (‘contacted’) was used?

Answer 7

31.8mph

Question 8

What was the mean speed when the most severe verb (‘smashed’) was used?

Answer 8

40.5mph

Question 9

Why do leading questions affect EWT?

Answer 9

The response-bias explanation suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participants’ memories, but just influences how they describe the answer

Question 10

Loftus and Palmer (1974) conducted a second experiment that supported what explanation?

Answer 10

The substitution explanation, which states that the wording of a leading question changes the participants memory of a film clip

Question 11

What was Loftus and Palmers’ second experiment?

Answer 11

The broken glass experiment

Question 12

Describe the procedure of the broken glass experiment

Answer 12

150 student participants were shown a film of a multi-vehicle car accident and asked questions about it
The participants were split into 3 equal groups:
1st group: ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit eachother?’
2nd group: ‘How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’
3rd group: asked nothing about the speed. All groups returned a week later and were asked, “did you see any broken glass?”, even though there was none in the film.

Question 13

How many participants were there in the broken glass experiment?

Answer 13

150 student participants

Question 14

Describe the 3 groups that the participants were split into in the broken glass experiment

Answer 14

1st group were asked ‘How fast were the cars going when they hit eachother?’

2nd group were asked ‘How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?’

3rd group were asked nothing about the speed

Question 15

What were the results of the broken glass experiment when the participants were asked “did you see any broken glass?”

Answer 15

The 1st group that was given the verb ‘hit’: 7 said yes, and 43 said no

The 2nd group that was given the verb ‘smashed’: 16 said yes, and 34 said no

The 3rd group that were asked nothing about the speed: 6 said yes, 44 said no

Question 16

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said yes in the first group that was given the verb ‘hit’

Answer 16

7 said yes

Question 17

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said no in the first group that was given the verb ‘hit’

Answer 17

43 said no

Question 18

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said yes in the second group that was given the verb ‘smashed’

Answer 18

16 said yes

Question 19

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said no in the second group that was given the verb ‘smashed’?

Answer 19

34 said no

Question 20

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said yes in the third group that was asked nothing about the speed?

Answer 20

6 said yes

Question 21

In the broken glass experiment, how many participants said no in the third group that was asked nothing about the speed?

Answer 21

44 said no

Question 22

Who carried out research on post-event discussion (PED)

Answer 22

Gabbert (2003)

Question 23

What is meant by PED?

Answer 23

Eyewitnesses to a crime may sometimes discuss their experience and memories with each other.

Question 24

Describe Gabbert’s procedure in his ‘post-event discussion’ experiment

Answer 24

Studied participants in pairs. Each participant watched a video of the same crime but filmed from 2 different points of view. Each participant could see something the other one could not. Both participants then discussed what they had seen before individually completing a test of recall.

Question 25

What were Gabberts findings in his 'post-event discussion' experiment?

Answer 25

71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that they did not see in the video but had picked up in the post-event discussion. They also completed the study with a control group where NO discussion occured. In this experiment there was 0% mistakes. This was evidence of memory conformity

Question 26

What are the 2 explanations that explain why 'post-event discussion' affects EWT?

Answer 26

Memory contamination and memory conformity

Question 27

Describe memory contamination

Answer 27

When co-witnesses to a crime discuss it with others, their testimonies become altered or distorted. This is because they combine (mis) information from other witnesses with their own memories.

Question 28

Describe memory conformity

Answer 28

Gabbert concluded that witnesses often go along with each other, either to win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they are wrong. Unlike with memory contamination, the actual memory is unchanged.

Question 29

Give a strength of misleading information as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT

Answer 29

Strength - real world application. Important practical uses in the criminal justice system - the consequence of innacurate EWT can be very serious. Loftus (1975) believes that leading questions can have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be extremely careful about how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses. Psychologists are sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court trials and explain the limits on EWT to the juries

Question 30

Give 2 limitations of misleading information as a factor affecting the accuracy of EWT

Answer 30

1. Artificial material - Loftus and Palmers research was carried out in a lab - the participants watched the crashes on a screen. This is a very different experience to real life and a lot less stressful. Psychologists (1986) found that witness of a traumatic robbery had very accurate recall after 4 months. This shows that using artificial tasks tells us little about how leading questions affect EWT in real crimes/ accidents 2. Lack of external validity and demand characteristics - A psychologist (1994) argued that what you can remember as an eyewitness in real life can have important consequences - this is not true in a lab setting. Research participants want to be helpful so may answer a question even if they are unsure of the answer - demand characteristics. Therefore, EWT may be more accurate in the real world. Both of these challenge the validity of EWT research