eyewitness testimony- misleading information affecting the accuracy of it Flashcards
eyewitness testimony (EWT)
ability of people to remember details of events, such as accidents and crimes, which they observed themselves. Accuracy of EWT can be affected by factors such as misleading information and anxiety
misleading information
incorrect information given to an eyewitness usually after the event (post event information). It can take many forms, such as leading questions and post event discussion between co-witnesses and/or other people
leading question
a question which because of the way it is phrased, suggests a certain answer (e.g. was the knife in the left hand? leads them to think it was)
post event discussion (PED)
occurs when there’s more than one witness to an event. Witnesses may discuss what they’ve seen with co-witnesses or with other people. This may influence the accuracy of each witnesses recall of the event.
procedure of loftus and palmer research into leading questions
-45 students watched clips of car accidents and then asked them questions about the accident. In the leading question participants were asked to describe how fast the cars were travelling.
-there was 5 groups of participants and each group was given a different verb in the leading question. One group had the verb hit, others had contracted, bumped, collided ,and smashed.
findings of Loftus and Palmer research into leading questions
mean estimated speed was calculated for each participant group. these included: the verb contracted resulted in a mean estimated speed of 31.8 mph. For smashed the mean was 40.5%. The leading question biased the eyewitness’s recall of an event.
why do leading questions affect EWT? - response bias explanation
this explanation suggests that the wording of the question has no real effect on the participants memories, but just influences how they decide to answer. When a participant gets a leading question using the word ‘smashed’, it encourages them to choose a higher speed estimate.
why do leading questions affect EWT? - substitution explanation with Loftus and Palmer
Loftus and Palmer conducted a second experiment that supported the substitution explanation which proposes that the wording of a leading question changes the participants memory of the film clip. This was shown because participants who originally heard ‘smashed’ were more likely to then report later seeing broken glass (there wasn’t any) than those who heard ‘hit’. The critical verb altered their memory of the incident.
procedure of Gabbert’s study into research on post-event discussion
Participants were studied in pairs in which each participant watched the same crime but filmed from different pov’s. This meant each participant could see elements of the video which others couldn’t. Both participants in the pair then discussed what they saw before individually completing a test of recall.
2 findings of Gabbert’s study into research on post-event discussion
-researchers found that 71% of participants mistakenly recalled aspects of the event that others didn’t see in the video but had picked up in the discussion
-the corresponding figure in a control group (one with no discussion after the video) was 0%. This was evidence of memory conformity.
why does post-event discussion affect EWT?- memory contamination
one explanation memory contamination which showed when co-witnesses to a crime discussed it with each other, their eyewitness testimonies may become altered or distorted. This is because they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories.
why does post-event discussion affect EWT?- memory conformity
one explanation is memory conformity shown in Gabberts study in which he concluded that witnesses often go along with eachother, either yo win social approval or because they believe the other witnesses are right and they’re wrong. Unlike with memory contamination, the actual memory is unchanged.
one strength of the substitution explanation (leading questions) to support the misleading information theory of affecting EWT accuracy
-one strength of the substitution explanation that it has important practical uses in the criminal justice system.
-Loftus and Palmer believe questions have such a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be careful how they phrase their questions when interviewing eyewitnesses in court trials and explain the limits of EWT to juries.
-This shows that psychologists can help to improve the way the legal system works by protecting innocent people from faulty convictions based on unreliable EWT.
one limitation of the substitution explanation (leading questions) to support the misleading information theory of affecting EWT accuracy
-one limitation of the substitution explanation (leading questions) is that it has low population validity.
-In Loftus and Palmers study, participants watched film clips in a lab which is very different from witnessing a real event (e.g. less stressful).
-Foster pointed out how being in a controlled condition of a lab study meant eyewitnesses responses were less motivated to be accurate, because their responses didn’t have important consequences like they would in a real event
-This suggests that substitution explanation can’t be generalised due to the study results from the sample being specific to that one event and situation (a lab)
one strength of the post-event discussion explanation to support the misleading information theory of affecting EWT accuracy
-A strength of Gabbert’s research is that it covers the variable of age range and its possible findings.
-She tested 2 different populations (uni students & older adults). She found little difference between these 2 conditions.
-Therefore, her results provide good population validity and allow us to conclude that post event discussion affects both younger and older adults in a similar way.
