MEMORY: Factors Affecting Accuracy Eyewitness Testimony: Misleading Information Flashcards

(44 cards)

1
Q

when asked a question what may mislead you to give a certain ansmwer

A

wording of the question

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

define EWT

A

ABILITY of people to remember details of events theyve observed

(e.g accidents and crimes)

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

what factors affect EWT

A

misleading info

anxiety

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

misleading info

A

incorrect info given to EW usually after event

many forms - leading Q , post event discussion btwn co witnesses

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

leading Q

A

when question phrased in a certain way which suggest a certain answer

e.g was knife in his left hand - makes person think there was a knife there

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

PED lol not econ

A

when theres more than one witness to an event

they may discuss what theyve seen with each other

influencing accuracy fo recall of event

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

why is leading questions a particular problem for EWT

hint police

A

police may direct witness to give a particular answer

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

How many particpants were in Loftus and Palmer’s experiment 1

A

45

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Whaqt did the particpants in Loftus and Palmer 1 do

A

watch videos of car accidents then were asked questions

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

what is a critical question

A

leading question or misleading information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

in the critical question particpants were asked to

A

describe how fast cars were travelling

‘about how fast was the car going when they collided with each other’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How many groups of participants were there

A

5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

each group was given a different ….

A

verb

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what were the different verbs given to particpants

A
hit
collided
contacted
smashed
bumped
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

what was calculated for each particpant group

A

the mean

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

what was the mean for contacted

A

31.8mph

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what was the mean for smashed

A

40.5mph

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

what does the leading question do to the recall

A

biases EW recall of event

19
Q

what does the response bias explanation suggest

A

wording of question doesn’t effect participant’s memories

just influences how they decide to answer

20
Q

the leading questio with teh verb smashed encourages participants tooo

A

choose a higher speed estimate

21
Q

Loftus and Palmer conducted a second experiment for that supported teh explanation for

A

substitution explanation

22
Q

What is the substitution explanation

A

wording of a leading question changes participants memory of the film clip

23
Q

How was the substitution explanation shown

A

participants who og heard ‘smashed’ more likely to report seeing broken glass

even though there was none

than those who heard hit

24
Q

what did teh criticakl verb in the second experiment do

A

altered their memory of the incident

25
What is post event discussion
when eyewitnesses to crime discuss their memories and experiences with each other
26
Gabbert et al 2003 studied who
particpants in pairs
27
what did each participant in Gabbert et als study watch
video of same crime but each person from a different POV
28
as the participant pair watched the same video from a different angle what did this mean
each participant could see elements in the event the other could not
29
In Gabbert et al give an example of what one participant could see the other couldn't
title of a book carried by a young woman
30
at the end of gabbert et als study what did the participants do
discussed what they saw before individually completing a test of recall
31
What did Gabbert et als research find
71% of partipants mistakenly recalled events they hadn't seen in the video but picked up from PED
32
What was evidence of memory conformity in Gabbert et al study
control group whi had no PED had a 0% mistaken recall of events they hadn't seen
33
What are the two explanations for PED affecting EWT 2Cs
Memory contamination memory conformity
34
What is memory contamination
co - witnesses to a crime discuss with each other and their EWT becomes altered/distorted
35
In memory contamination why do EWT become altered/distorted
they combine (mis)information from other witnesses with their own memories
36
who came up with memeory conformity
Gabbert et al
37
What is memory conformity
witnesses go along with each other due to social approval or believing the other one is right and they are wrong
38
Unlike with memory contamination in memory CONFORMITY ....
the actual memory is unchanged
39
eval for factors affecting EWT
REAL WORLD APP - important practical uses in the criminal justice system CP - practical app of EWT may be affected by issues with research LIMITATION - substitution explanatino - EWT more accurate for some aspects of an event than others LIMITATION - evidence challenging memory conformity
40
REAL WORLD APPLICATION STRENGTH - important uses in teh jsutice system got important x uses in the x system consequences of x EWT can be x x believes leading q can have usch a x effect on memory that police officers need to be very x about how they x their q when x EW x sometimes asked to act as x witnesses in court and explain x of EWT to x this shows x can help to the x the way the legal system works, especially by x x people from x convictions based on x EWT
got important practical uses in the justice system consequences of innacurate EWT can be serious loftus beleives leading q can have usch a distorting effect on memory that police officers need to be very carefu about how they phrase their q when interviewing EW Psychs sometimes asked to act as expert witnesses in court and explain limtaitnos of EWT to juries this shows psychologists can help to the improve the way the legal system works, especially by protecting innocent people fromfaulty convictions based on unrealiable EWT
41
explain the counterpoint to real world applications FOSTER x applications of EWT may be affected by issues w x e.g L&P pt watched film x in a lab, which is a v x experience from witnessing a x event (less x) x pointed out what EW rememeber in real x has significant x whereas pt repsonses in x doesn't matter in same x so pt could have been less x and x to be x suggesting research such as LOFTUS way too x about effects of misleading info - EWT may be more x than many x suggest
practical applications of EWT may be affected by issues w research e.g L&P pt watched a film clips in a lab, which is a v diff experience from witnessing a real event (less stressful) Foster pointed out what EW rememeber in real world has significant consequences whereas pt repsonses in research doesn't matter in same way so pt could have been less serious and motivated to be accurate suggesting research such as LOFTUS way too pessimistic about effects of misleading info - EWT may be more dependable than many studies suggest
42
explain limitaiton evidence against substitution limitaition of substitution epxlanation is EWT more x for some x of an event than other x and Hayne 2001 particpants shown x when pt later asked x questions , recall for x details more accurate than for x ones presumably particpants attention x on x features of the event and these memories relativley x to misleading info this suggests that x memories for x details survived and weren't x, an outcome not x by x explanation
limitaition of substitution epxlanation is EWT more accurate for some aspects of an event than other Sutherland and Hayne 2001 particpants shown clip when pt later asked misleading questions , recall for central details more accurate than for peripheral ones presumably particpants attention focused on central features of the event and these memories relativley resistant to misleading info this suggests that og memories for central details survived and weren't distorted, an outcome not predicted by substitution explanation
43
Point for 'evidence challenging memory conformity' limitation of memory x explanation is evidence xxx actually alters EWT researchers showed PT film x 2v , mugger hair x brown in one , x brown in the other pt discussed clips in x, eahc having seen x versions they often didnt x what they'd seen in x or what tehy had x from co x but a x of the two e.g common answer to hair question was not light/dark brown but x brown) this suggests memory itself is x through x by misleading xxx rather than the x of memory x
limitation memory conformity explanation is evidence PED actually alters EWT researchers showed PT film clip 2v , mugger hair dark brown in one , light brown in the other pt discussed clips in pairs eahc having seen diff versions they often didnt report what they'd seen in clips or what tehy had heard from co witnesses but a blend of the two e.g common answer to hair question was not light/dark brown but medium brown) this suggests memory itself is distorted through contamination by misleading PED rather than the result of memory conformity
44
Explanation for Limitation : DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS | Lab studies have identified misleading info as a cause of innacruate EWT partly by being able to control variables
but researchers argue answers given by pt in lab studies due to demand characteristics pt want to be helpful and not let researcher down so they guess when asked a question they dont know the answer to