memory

Question 1

factors affecting eyewitness testimony: leading questions

Answer 1

Loftus and Palmer (1974)
45 American students, changed the verb when using about the speed of the cars (collided/smashed/hit)
found the estimated speed impacted by the severity of the verb used

Question 2

in Loftus and palmer (1974) what average speed did participants who were given the verb ‘smashed’ report?

Answer 2

40.5mph

Question 3

in Loftus and palmer (1974) what average speed did participants who were given the verb ‘contacted’ report?

Answer 3

31.8mph

Question 4

ao3 loftus and palmer weakness: ecological validity

Answer 4

-questionable ecological validity
-participants watched a video of car crash and witnessed events from start to finish
-witnesses rarely see whole event
-so results don’t reflect everyday car events and unable to conclude if p’s involved in real accidents would be susceptible to leading questions in the same way

Question 5

ao3 loftus and palmer weakness: population validity

Answer 5

-lacks population validity
-american students
-reasonable to argue students less experienced drivers who may be less accurate estimating speeds
-unable to generalise to other populations such as older more experienced drivers who may be more accurate and so not as susceptible to leading q’s

Question 6

ao3 loftus and palmer strength: highly controlled

Answer 6

-lab study
-degree of control reduces extraneous variables -increasing validity of results
-also, easy to replicate research to test with different populations to see if same results are achieved

Question 7

factors affecting eye witness testimony: post-event discussion

Answer 7

Gabbert et al. (2003)
60 students from Aberdeen uni, 60 older adults from local community
watched video of girl stealing money from wallet
control group tested individually, co-witness group tested in pairs
p’s in co-witness group told watched same video but actually watched different perspectives only one watched girl actually steal, they discussed the crime together then completed a questionnaire

Question 8

in Gabbert et al. (2003) what percentage of witnesses in the co-witness group recalled info they had not actually seen?

Answer 8

71%

Question 9

in Gabbert et al. (2003) what percentage of witnesses in the co-witness group said that the girl was guilty despite not seeing her commit the crime?

Answer 9

60%

Question 10

ao3 Gabbert et al. weakness: ecological validity

Answer 10

witnessed different perspectives of same crime as in real crimes
but witnesses knew they were part of experiment, more likely to pay attention to video clip
results don’t reflect everyday examples of crimes as witnesses may be exposed to less info

Question 11

ao3 Gabbert et al. strength: population validity

Answer 11

-two different populations tested
-found little difference between two conditions
-so results allow us to conclude that post event discussion affects younger and older adults in a similar way

Question 12

ao3 Gabbert et al. weakness: unable to conclude why the distortion occurs

Answer 12

-distortion could be the result of poor memory where people assimilate new info into their own accounts of the event and unable to distinguish what they’ve seen and what they’ve heard. or could be due to conformity and social pressure form co-witness. further research required to find answer

Question 13

factors affecting eyewitness testimony: anxiety

Answer 13

Johnson and Scott (1976)
- ‘no-weapon’ condition, participants overheard a conversation in the laboratory about equipment failure, individual (the target) left the laboratory and walk passed the participant holding a pen
- ‘weapon’ condition, participants overheard a heated exchange and the sound of breaking glass and crashing chairs. ollowed by an individual (the target) running into the reception area, holding a bloodied letter opener.
-shown 50 photographs and ask to identify the person who had left the laboratory.

Question 14

weapon focus effect (Loftus)

Answer 14

focus attention on weapon not face of the target, higher levels of anxiety

Question 15

what percentage of those witnessing the man with a pen identified the target correctly?

Answer 15

49%

Question 16

what percentage of those witnessing the man with a knife identified the target correctly?

Answer 16

33%

Question 17

ao3 Johnson and Scott weakness: yuille and cutshall (1986)

Answer 17

-real life shooting where one person killed another seriously injured
-13 witnesses aged 15-32 took part in follow up research interviews 4-5 months later
-found their accounts still accurate 5 months later, all major details stayed the same
-also witnesses avoided leading q’s and anxiety at time of event had little or no effect on memory
-this refutes weapon focus and shows in cases of extreme anxiety EWT not affected

Question 18

ao3 Johnson and Scott weakness: ecological validity

Answer 18

-Although the participants waiting in the reception area, may have anticipated that something was going to happen, which could have affected the accuracy of their judgements
-results from real life case studies (see above) refute the findings of Loftus and suggest that her results do not represent real-life cases of extreme anxiety.

Question 19

ao3 Johnson and Scott weakness: ethical guidelines

Answer 19

-numerous ethical guidelines were broken
-p’s were deceived about the nature of the experiment and not protected from harm
-exposed some of the participants to a man holding a bloodied knife, which could have cause extreme feelings of anxiety
-p’s may have left the experiment feeling exceptionally stressed and anxious, especially if they, or someone they knew, had been involved in knife crime

Question 20

cognitive interview technique: report everything

Answer 20

small details act as cues to trigger further details

Question 21

cognitive interview technique: reinstate context

Answer 21

trigger, context-dependant remembering

Question 22

cognitive interview technique: reverse order

Answer 22

check accuracy with chronological shift

Question 23

cognitive interview technique: change perspective

Answer 23

shift disrupts schema

Question 24

strength of CI: Fisher et al. (1990)

Answer 24

witnesses reported greater detail in their accounts of crimes when American detectives had been trained to use the technique.

Question 25

weakness of CI:

Answer 25

time consuming, requires special training and extra cognitive skills from interviewer