Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

psychology Memory > factors affecting EWT+ improving accuracy✅ > Flashcards

factors affecting EWT+ improving accuracy✅ Flashcards

1
Q

what is an eyewitness testimony?

A

evidence given to police/court by someone who has witnessed a crime

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what are the factors that affect eyewitness testimony?

A
  • misleading information
  • leading questions or post event discussion
  • anxiety
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

what was the aim of Loftus and Palmer’s first study?

A

to investigate how misleading info (particularly leading questions) can influence EWs memories of an event

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

what was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s first study?

A
  • 45 Ps were shown 7 clips of cars colliding
  • split into 5 groups with 9 in each
  • participants were asked “how fast were the cars going when they ____ into each other”
  • each group was given a different verb ; smashed, collided, bumped hit or contacted
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

what were the findings of Loftus and Palmer’s first study?

A
  • smashed = 40.8 mph
    contacted = 31.8 mph
  • how question was phrased influenced participants speed estimates
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

what was the aim of Loftus and Palmer’s second study?

A

to see if people would remember details that arent true

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

what was the procedure of Loftus and Palmer’s second study?

A
  • Ps were shown short video of multi-vehicle accident and were then asked questions
    -participants were split into 3 groups- 50 in each
  • G1-“how fast were they going when they hit each other”
  • G2- “how fast were they going when they smashed into each other?
  • G3 were not asked about the vehicles
    -one week later participants were asked if they saw any broken glass
    –> there was NO BROKEN GLASS in vid
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

describe the results of Loftus and Palmer’s second study

A
  • smashed group= 30% said glass
  • hit group- 14% said glass
  • control group- 12% said glass
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

what are the two explanations for why leading questions affect EWT?

A
  • response-bias explanation
  • the substitution explanation
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

describe the response-bias explanation

A
  • suggests wording of question has no real effect on P’s memories
  • just influences how they choose to answer
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

describe the substitution explanation

A
  • wording of question actually changes the Ps memory
    eg: Ps who heard word smashed more likely to report seeing broken glass
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

what is the procedure of Gabbert(2003)’s study regarding post event discussion?

A
  • sample included 60 students and 60 older members of community
  • participants watched video of girl stealing money from wallet by themselves
  • they were then tested either individually or in pairs (co-witness)
  • co-witnesses were told they had seen same vid, however only one had actually seen girl stealing
  • cowitness participants discussed the crime together, then completed questionnaire
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

what were the findings of Gabbert’s study of post event discussion?

A
  • 71% of witnesses in co-witness group recalled info they had not actually seen
  • 60% said the girl was guilty, despite the fact they had not seen her commit the crime
  • these results highlight the issue of post event discussion regarding EWTs
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what are the two explanations of the effects of post event discussion

A
  • source monitoring theory
  • conformity theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

describe source monitoring theory

A
  • memories are genuinly distorted
  • eyewitnesses can recall information from the event (accurate or inaccurate), but cannot recall where it came from
    -was it from their memory or from someone else’s? –> This is known as source confusion
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

describe conformity theory regarding post event discussion

A
  • eyewitness memories are not actually distorted by PED
  • recall changes as they go along with the accounts of co-witness
  • this could be to win social approval or because they genuinely believe other witnesses are right and they are wrong
17
Q

what are some A03 points of misleading information?

A
  • research into misleading questions isnt generalisable –> loftus and palmer used students
  • research was conducted in lab–> high reliability increases validity
  • evidence is useful–> train police to not influence EWS–> applicable to real life
18
Q

describe the method of Johnson and Scott’s study regarding anxiety

A
  • participants believed they were taking part in lab experiment–>while in waiting room, they heard argument in next door room
  • ‘low anxiety condition’ - discussion was heard, then man left with pen and grease on his hands
  • ‘high anxiety condition’- heated discussion was heard, followed by man leaving with pen knife covered in blood
  • Ps asked to identify man from 50 photos
19
Q

what were the results from Johnson and Scott’s study regarding anxiety?

A
  • low anxiety condition= 49% accurate
  • high anxiety condition= 33% accurate
  • anxiety has negative effect on eye witness testimony
  • this phenomenon is called weapon focus (loftus et al)
20
Q

describe weapon focus by Loftus et al.

A
  • during violent crimes, arousal focuses witness on central details (weapon) rather than peripheral details
  • this leads to poor recall of crime details
21
Q

describe Yuille and Cutshall’s study regarding anxiety on EWTs

A
  • conducted study of real life shooting in gun shop in Canada
  • interviews with witnesses took place 4-5 months after event
  • these interviews were compared to original police interviews
  • Ps asked how stressed they felt on a 7 point scale + whether they had emotional problems since
    eg: sleeplessness
22
Q

what were the results of Yuille and Cutshall’s study?

A
  • witnesses were very accurate
  • participants who had reported highest levels of stress were most accurate (88%)
  • less stressed were less accurate (75%)
  • anxiety improves EWTs
23
Q

what does Deffenbacher say about anxiety and recall accuracy?

A
  • low levels of anxiety produce low levels of recall accuracy, but memory becomes more accurate as anxiety increases
  • however, at a certain point optimal anxiety is reached–> this is point of maximum accuracy
  • if stress goes beyond this, recall then suffers a drastic decline
24
Q

what are some A03 points of anxiety as a factor affecting eyewitness testimony

A

-evidence suggesting weapon focus isn’t relevant–> lacks internal validity
-ethical guidelines were broken during Johnson and Scott’s research
-strenth= research by Christianson and Hubinette was in context of real crime

25
Q

what 4 main principles, identified by Fisher and Geiselman, does the cognitive interview include?

A
  • report everything
  • reinstate context
  • change perspective
  • reverse order
26
Q

describe ‘report everything’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A

ask witness to report everything even if it seems too trivial or irrelevant
- “please don’t leave anything out”

27
Q

what is the function of ‘report everything’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • memories are interconnected with one another
  • recollection of one item may cue more memories
28
Q

describe ‘reinstate context’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • witness will be asked to mentally reconstruct the physical and personal context which existed during crime
  • “what was the weather like?”
29
Q

what is the function of ‘reinstate context’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A

seemingly trivial details may trigger other, more important, memories

30
Q

describe ‘change perspective’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • ask witness to recall event from another person’s point of view
  • “what might they have seen?”
31
Q

what is the function of the ‘change perspective’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • done to disrupt the effect of schemas on recall
  • prevents the use of pre-existing schemas (our general expectation of what we think might have happened)
32
Q

describe ‘reverse order’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • ask witness to recall info in different orders, starting from a different place such as end or middle
  • “what was the last thing you recall happening”
33
Q

what is the function of ‘reverse order’ as a technique of the cognitive interview

A
  • done to disrupt the effect of schemas
  • prevents the use of pre-existing schemas (our general expectation of what we think might have happened)
34
Q

what is the purpose of the cognitive interview?

A

designed to elicit more info than regular interview

35
Q

what are some A03 points about the cognitive interview?

A

-evidence to support the cognitive interview–> Fisher et al
-technique can be time consuming + not suitable for children (egocentric)
-research suggests CI is still susceptible to misleading info

psychology Memory (2 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions