Factors Affecting The Accuracy Of Eye Witness Testimony

Question 1

What is eyewitness testimony?

Answer 1

The ability of people to remember the details of events which they have observed.

Question 2

What is misleading information?

Answer 2

Incorrect information given to the eyewitness after the event.

Question 3

What is a leading question?

Answer 3

A question that suggests a certain answer due to its phrasing.

Question 4

What is an example of a leading question?

Answer 4

‘Was the knife in the accused’s left hand?’
This implies that this was the case.

Question 5

What was the aim of Loftus & Palmer (1974)?

Answer 5

To investigate how leading questions influence the memory of events.

Question 6

What was the method of Loftus & Palmer (1974)?

Answer 6

45 students (5 groups of 9 students) were shown the same short video clips of car crashes.
They were asked- ‘about how fast were the cars going when they ________* each other?’
*smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted.

Question 7

What were the results of Loftus & Palmer (1974)?

Answer 7

Range of 9mph-
Smashed: 40.8mph.
Contacted: 31.8mph.

Verb INTENSITY caused the mph estimation to change.

Question 8

What was the conclusion of Loftus & Palmer (1974)?

Answer 8

Suggests that EWT is inaccurate and unreliable.

Information from two sources (witnessing the event and the question) integrates in a way that we are unable to tell which source each detail came from (all we have is one ‘memory’).

Question 9

What is post-event discussion?

Answer 9

The original memory of an event being distorted through discussion of the event with other people.

Question 10

What is the source monitoring theory?

Answer 10

When memories of an event are genuinely distorted (due to schemas or discussion).

Question 11

What is conformity theory?

Answer 11

When one’s recap of events appear to change as they go along with the accounts of co-witnesses.

Question 12

What was the aim of Gabbert et al (2003)?

Answer 12

To investigate the effect of post-event discussion on EWT.

Question 13

What was the method of Gabbert et al (2003)?

Answer 13

• 120 participants (60 students, 60 adults) watched a video of a girl stealing money from a wallet.
• They were either tested individually (control group) or in pairs (co-witnesses).
  -Participants watched different perspectives of the video - only one person had witnessed the crime.
  -All participants completed a questionnaire testing their memory.

Question 14

What were the results of Gabbert et al (2003)?

Answer 14

-71% of co-witness groups recalled information they hadn’t seen.
-60% said that the girl was guilty.

Question 15

What was the conclusion of Gabbert et al (2003)?

Answer 15

Post-event discussion has a significant effect on the accuracy of EWT.

Question 16

What are evaluation points for Loftus & Palmer (1974)?

Answer 16

-Real-world implications: the Devlin Report (1976) instructed juries that it is not safe to convict on a single EWT alone.
-Lacked mundane realism/ecological validity: participants viewed video clips rather than being present at a real-life accident.

Question 17

What are evaluation points for Gabbert et al (2003)?

Answer 17

-Lack of ecological validity: participants knew they were taking part in an experiment and were more likely to have paid close.
-Population validity: students and adults were tested, with little differences in results.

Question 18

What is the Yerkes-Dobson law (graph)?

Answer 18

Question 19

According to the Yerkes-Dobson graph, how do small-medium levels of anxiety affect EWT accuracy?

Answer 19

Increases.

Question 20

According to the Yerkes-Dobson graph, how do high levels of anxiety affect EWT accuracy?

Answer 20

Interferes, decreases.

Question 21

What was the aim of Johnson & Scott (1976)?

Answer 21

To investigate how anxiety affects EWT accuracy.

Question 22

What was the method of Johnson & Scott (1976)?

Answer 22

Participants were told to wait in a waiting room, and heard an argument in the other room.
-Weapon- knife with blood.
-No weapon- pen with grease.

Question 23

What were the results of Johnson & Scott (1976)?

Answer 23

-Weapon- 33% accuracy.
-No weapon- 49% accuracy.

Question 24

What was the conclusion of Johnson & Scott (1976)?

Answer 24

High anxiety decreases EWT accuracy.

Question 25

What was the aim of Yuille & Cutshall (1986)?

Answer 25

To investigate how anxiety affects EWT.

Question 26

What was the method of Yuille & Cutshall (1986)?

Answer 26

13 witnesses to a robbery & murder in Canada were re-interviewed 5 months after the crime. The re-interview included 2 misleading questions.

Question 27

What were the results of Yuille & Cutshall (1986)?

Answer 27

The misleading questions had no effect on EWT.

Question 28

What was the conclusion of Yuille & Cutshall (1986)?

Answer 28

Witnesses of real-life events are accurate.