Eyewitness Testimony Flashcards
(20 cards)
What are eyewitness testimonies and what were they once primarily used for?
These are accounts given by people of an event they have witnessed, this is included in cognitive psychology and law courts.
Used to be enough to convict someone of a crime.
What are the two factors that affect EWT?
Misleading information
— Leading questions
— Post-event discussion
What are leading questions? Summarise them and provide 2 examples
These are formed in a way that a desired answer is implied, research has found that these can alter EWT.
E.g asking a witness ‘ When did the argument start ? ‘ implies there was an argument, or ‘Did you see the man with the gun?’ — both more leading than ‘Please tell me what you remember happening’
What are the 3 steps to Loftus and Palmer’s 1st (1974) experiment?
- Showed 45 students seven films from several traffic accidents
- Ppts were given a questionnaire with the key question ‘About how fast were the cars going when they _____ into each other?’
- Blank space was filled with one of the five verbs; ‘smashed, collided, bumped, hit and contacted’
How is the question in Loftus and Palmer’s 1st experiment leading?
As the verb ‘Leads’ the ppts to estimate the speed based on the information/connotations of the verb.
I.e ‘smashed’ has a greater impact than ‘contacted’
What were the 2 results from Loftus and Palmer’s 1st experiment?
Estimates of speed of cars were affected by verb used
“Smashed” influenced an average of 40.8mph
“Contacted” average 31.8mph
What are the steps to Loftus and Palmer’s 2nd (1974) ‘broken glass’ experiment? What were the 3 groups?
- New set of 150 students divided into 3 groups and shown a 1 minute film of a car accident.
Group 1 were control and had no question about speed, Group 2 included the word “hit” and group 3, “smashed.” - PPTs asked to return 1 week later when they were asked a new series of questions — including the critical question “did you see any broken glass?”
What were the 3 results from Loftus + Palmer’s 2nd ‘Broken glass’ Experiment? What does this suggest?
No broken glass was in the film but those who thought car was going faster more likely to recall broken glass.
Control group – 6 (12%) recalled broken glass
Hit – 7 (14%) recalled broken glass
Smashed – 16 (32%) recalled broken glass
Suggests memories of those asked a leading question including a more suggestive verb (smashed) had an altered memory of the event
What was the ‘Disneyland’ study that Loftus reported on? (2 things)
What was the result?
College students who visited Disneyland as children were asked to evaluate Disneyland advertising material. Misleading info was included in the form i.e Bugs Bunny (Isn’t Disney) or Ariel (Little Mermaid wasn’t released then).
Ppts in Bugs/ Ariel group were more likely to report having shaken hands with these characters than the control group.
What are the main 2 limitations to the research into EWT?
- Ppts might have known the studies weren’t real and not be motivated to respond accurately
- Loftus may be underestimating the reliability of EWT in the real world.
What is Post-Event Discussion?
This is when witnesses have conversations with each other co-witnesses or an interviewer following an incident / crime.
What is memory contamination?
Research has suggested discussing events may ‘contaminate’ a witness’ memory of the event.
What is memory conformity?
Co-witnesses may go along with what each other has said. Witnesses therefore tend to form a consensus view of what happened when engaging in post-event discussion.
What do both ‘Memory contamination’ and ‘Memory conformity’ mean for police trying to gather information?
How is this prevented?
Means that police will be receiving unreliable / inaccurate data from the witnesses, but instead a ‘consensus’ view from the group.
Attempted to be prevented by separating witnesses and individually questioning, to avoid post-discussions.
What was Gabbert et al.’s (2003) study that supports memory conformity? (3 steps)
What were the 2 results?
- Paired ppts to watch different versions of the same event, each video showing unique details.
- In one condition, pairs discuss the event before individually recalling it.
- In the control condition, no discussion occurred.
Results showed that 71% of those who discuss the event recalled details they hadn’t seen, likely due to memory contamination/ conformity.
0% of the control group recalled incorrect details.
What is the main strength to EWT research and explain it?
Real world application
The consequences of incorrect EWT can be serious, therefore psychologists are able to ensure police ask the right questions to avoid misleading/leading answers
Acting as a counterpoint to the main strength— what did Foster et al. (1994) find that disputes Loftus/Palmer’s research and what does this suggest about the experiments?
Found if ppts thought they were watching a real-life robbery and thought their responses would influence a trial, their identification of the robber was more accurate.
Suggests Loftus’ experiments lack ecological validity as they were done under unrealistic conditions.
What did Sutherland and Hayne (2001) show ppts? What was the study and result? (Evidence against substitution)
- Ppts were shown a video clip and were later asked misleading questions, in which their recall was more accurate for central details of the event rather than peripheral ones.
- Presumably the ppt’s attention was focused on central features of the event— relatively resistant to misleading info.
Suggests original memories weren’t distorted.
What did Bodner et al. (2009) find that criticises memory conformity? (2 points)
Found that the impact of post-event discussion can be reduced if ppts are warned about the impact.
Recall was more accurate for those ppts who were warned that anything they might hear from a co-witness was second hand (hearsay)
What did Skagerberg and Wright (2008) find that challenges memory conformity? ( 2 steps )What was the result? What does this suggest?
- found that ppts were influenced by post-event discussion regarding the description of a mugger in a video clip.
- 2 clips, hair was either light brown or dark brown.
Most ppts reported a blend after post-event discussion of what was seen across the 2 clips.
Suggests memories had been contaminated by the discussion and not by the memory conformity.
